David P. Scaer
Copyright by David P. Scaer
1979
Printed by
Concordia Theological Seminary Press
hrt Wayne, Indiana
THE APOSTOLIC SCRI'PTURES
To Paul H. Scaer, father,
father in Christ, and now father with Christ
and
my students at Concordia Theological Seminary,
Springfield, Illinois
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Chapter 1 Inspiration and Apostolicity
Chapter 2 The Prominence of the Apostolic Office
Chapter 3 The Use of Letters as the Extension
of Apostolic Authority
Chapter 4 What Is an Apostle?
Chapter 5 Limitation and Extent of Apostolic Authority
Chapter 6 The Nature of the Apostolic Word as the
Word of God
Chapter 7 The Apostolic Office and the Canonical Question
Chapter 8 The Apostolic Scriptures and Literary Criticism
Conclusion Apostolicity and Related Problems
Chapter 1
Inspiration and Apostolicity
The key word in explaining the unique quality of the Holy Scriptures
has been the word "inspiration." One of the ways to determine whether
or not a person accepts the traditional Christian faith is to determine
his attitude to the inspired Scriptures. In this brief study I would like
to show, at least in regard to the New Testament, that it would be help-
ful to speak about the "inspired Scriptures" also in terms of the "apos-
tolic Scriptures."
In the last two centuries there have been many doubts about the
historical Jesus. Did Jesus live? And if there really was a Jesus, what
can we know about Him? Historically speaking, there have been fewer
doubts and questions about the apostles of Jesus. In the second half
of the first century great changes occurred in the western world be-
cause Christianity was stirring. Some people have doubts about
Jesus, but no one can doubt that by the end of the first century Chris-
tians were gathering into groups called churches. These churches
claimed to have been started by the followers of Jesus whose official
title, that of "apostles," bespoke their authority in the early church.
Some other churches claimed to have been started by people who were
the apostles' assistants. In the second century it was considered a
great honor to have known an apostle and in turn to know someone
who had known an apostle. Polycarp, one of the earliest church fathers,
claimed to have had such a relationship with John, the disciple whom
Jesus loved.
THEPRIMACY OF PETER
In all cases Peter is singled out from the other disciples for special
attention. Andrew first made the acquaintance with Jesus, according
to John's Gospel (1:41), but the call of Peter is in every instance de-
scribed with more embellishment. In John's Gospel his name is changed
from Simon to Cephas, or Peter. In the other gospels, where the actual
call into the formal discipleship is described, Peter is mentioned first.
Right after this call there is the inclusion of the healing of Peter's
mother-in-law, an incident which occurred in his house.
The importance of Peter can be seen from even a casual perusal
of the gospels. The disciples are called "Simon and those with him"
(Mark 1:36). He is the one who confesses that Jesus is the Christ (Matt
16:16). While all the disciples desert Jesus at His arrest, Peter's deser-
tion is singled out for particular condemnation. With James and John
he witnesses the raising of Jairus' daughter, the transfiguration of
Jesus, and His passion in Gethsemane. In Mark's Gospel the angel
tells the women to inform "the disciples and Peter" that Jesus is risen
from the dead (16:7). In John's Gospel he gets special attention of a
different kind. While fishing on the Sea of Galilee he jumps overboard
and swims to the shore. He must acknowledge his loyalty to Jesus
three times, and he is pictured as being concerned about receiving at
least the same type of treatment as did the "disciple whom Jesus
loved" (John 21:20-23). The prominence of Peter before Jesus' death
continues also after His death and carries over into the early church.
OTHER
APOSTOLIC
TRACES
IN THE GOSPELS
Lack of space prevents us from showing all of the footprints the
several apostles have left in the gospels. But the personality of each
disciple, especially Peter's, is woven as golden thread throughout the
fabric of the gospels. The church has always recognized the clues that
the apostles left behind in the gospels. Let us look at some examples.
All the gospels contain the list of the Twelve, and all contain Matthew's
name. But only the gospel associated with Matthew adds "tax collector"
to his name (10:3). John's Gospel has the cryptic remark: "the disciple
whom Jesus loved" (21:20). It never mentions John by name, although
his is a very prominent name in the other three gospels. Church tra-
dition has taught the connection of Mark with Peter. Even without
this tradition, Peter- he is frequently caIled Simon in Mark's Gospel
-has left clues in Mark which are easily detected.
Luke presents a somewhat different problem, which we will
discuss later in connection with Paul. (Paul had a problem with his
apostleship, causing him difficulty during his life; it needs special
consideration.) Luke speaks of working with "those who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" (Luke 1:2).
Here Luke refers to his direct contact with the apostles. His reference
to eyewitnesses-from-the-beginning is to the disciples of Jesus w h o
had been chosen near the time of His baptism by John the Baptist.
The gospels, for Christians the most important part of the Scrip-
tures because they tell us about Jesus who is Himself the Good News,
are authoritative documents. Because they are writings associated with
the apostles, they are as authoritative today as they were in the early
church. They are the writings of men appointed by Jesus to be religious
authorities over God's people, just as Jesus Himself had been given
teaching authority by the Father.
The authority of an apostle is quite evident in the Book of Acts and
in the epistles of St. Paul. The apostles conduct a council in Jerusalem
to solve difficulties in doctrine and practice (Acts 15). Paul refers to the
apostles who carried on their work in this city as "pillars" of the
church. (Gal. 2:9)
In the early church the apostles were commonly called the Twelve.
This is evident from 1 Corinthians 15:5, where Paul refers to the ap-
pearance of the resurrected Christ first to Peter and then to the Twelve.
When Paul used the term "Twelve," he referred to the apostolic group,
or "college." His emphasis is not on the number itself. After Easter, and
just prior to Pentecost, there were really only I1 disciples, as Judas had
taken his own life. The way in which Paul refers to Peter and the Twelve
seems to indicate that he means Peter and the other disciples (1 Ccr.
15:5). Then the number of "the other disciples" should be 10, for Judas'
replacement, Matthias, had not yet been appointed.
After Paul's conversion there were 13 apostles, with the inclusion
of Matthias and Paul. "Twelve" takes on an institutional significance.
Jesus had promised the disciples that they would sit on the 12 thrones
of Israel judging the 12 tribes. And in the Book of Revelation the
heavenly Jerusalem is pictured as resting on 12 foundations, each with
the name of an apostle on it (Rev. 21:12-14). The emphasis on 12 as
representative of an institution rather than having exact numerical
significance can be traced back to the Old Testament. There the He-
brews are called the 12 tribes even though there were actually 13 units.
The custom persisted down to Jesus' day even when there were only
three tribes: Judah, Benjamin, and Levi.
Regardless of the theological significance of the number 12 as an
institution, the ruling Twelve of the later church had direct historical
back reference to actual 12 men whom Jesus had chosen to be His
disciples. These men paralleled the actual 12 sons of Jacob. So in the
days of Jesus the emphasis on 12 was to the exact number, although
after the resurrection Thomas is called one of the 12 when in fact there
were only 11 at this time. All of the gospel writers list the names of the
12 men, and all, with the exception of John, preface the list with the
statement that Jesus called to Himself the Twelve. John does however
know the term "Twelve" and uses it in other instances (john 6:67) as d o
the other writers. In using the word "Twelve" Jesus is indicating that
these men would have a task which others, for example, the Seventy,
would not have.
Jesus indicates several times in the gospels that this task would
become fully clear only after His resurrection and with the coming of
the Holy Spirit. Except for rare moments of great faith, the disciples are
pictured as sincere followers of Jesus who unfortunately seldom under-
stand His mission. Peter, who reaches the epitome of discipleship in
calling Jesus "the Christ, the Son of the living God," is later called
"Satan" because, even though he recognizes Jesus as Cod's Son, he
does not recognize His mission (Matt. 16:23). As yet inept students,
they are instructed by Jesus on how to carry out the work of the King-
dom after His departure. The three synoptic writers picture Jesus as
calling the disciples together for special instruction intended only for
their benefit. Such special instruction anticipates that they will have
responsibilities and tasks and also accompanying hardships which
will not be common to all Christians.
merit ( 1 john 4;17) and will be thc I:,I>I> ( 1 1 ctei:~.>Iii!c i s I ? j \t:,in~c a!.
it might seem, apostolic sell-concern so c v ~ d c n tIn I'Ju~ 1 5 not u n -
common to John. jn the hc. z y e a ~ 5of 1115 ~b%.nr r l ~ ~ ~ b ldnd ~lty
truthfulness (21:?4), as if some in the c h u r ~ h not , linllhc. the. false apus-
ties who plagued Paul Ca;irl~h, arr. qucstlonrng I t . In the 5ccond
~ ~ ihe ~speaks t l of~necrivrrs cnfcrin,q fit(! C ~ I L I ~ tCi ~~ . ~ d ( ~ ~ ~ tp~r o t i-' c f l ~
who were both thc apc.l>fc>iii~ ~ H I a
C nC d mr.5s.lsr i u 7 )
The Third Epistle gives us the name ot a ccrtdirl Vrofrc;7hc ' ~ h o n lI t
is explicitly said that he does not .~ckrla,.\,!cd$cJohn'., .1~lth0ritv!v y!
surfacing througl, John's usual love and c a l m 15 his rcprc5scd a n w
over any of tlis r p o l t c ~ i iauthor~tv
~ and ,uprrrl~l1.lnin thl'
churches
Peter had a supremacy ,n the church wh:i'h ' - v < ~ \ vcrr, rdrciy clue<
tloned Paul had to detend his aposfulri~t>b ~ l lLb lth I'rx!c:r \ u t h 'iuthor
ity was self-evident. This sure, calm apostolic confidence marks the
letters attributed to him. The apostolic "1" is used infrequently in his
two epistles. With Peter the apostolic self-consciousness is set forth not
in a statement of self-defense but in the context of the future. While
Peter neither questions nor has to defend his apostolic office, he has
concern for the church after his death. Paul is concerned with the
spreading of his authority throughout the western world during his
own life time. Peter shows great interest in perpetuating the apostolic
office and message after his demise. In the second letter (2 Peter 1:13 ff.)
he mentions his own impending death and the necessity of preserving
the apostolic message when he is no longer with the church to give it
personal guidance.
If Peter did actually write the second letter, then there is very good
reason to believe that hc is making reference to the gospel which is
known today as Mark. Regardless of the exact reference, he must be
referring to a manuscript of some sort. Only a manuscript could fit these
words: "And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at
any time to recall these things." (2 Peter 1:15). He considers it important
that even after he dies his office will continue to have a unique force and
validity in the church. Peter's self-confidence does not mean that he has
n o polemical concerns in his apostolic office. Quite to the contrary, he
speaks about false teachers heading for destruction (2 Peter 2:1 ff.) and
about unstable individuals who twist the writings of Paul (2 Peter
315 ff.). This casual reference to Paul shows that already in the first
century the writings of the apostles were recognized as authoritative in
the church. Even if Second Peter should prove to be a pseudograph,
this ancient writing would clearly show in what high regard the early
church held the writings of Paul. All this shows that the important
question of what was "Bible" and what was not was largely determined
by apostolicity, for the early church knew that what was spoken by the
apostles came from God Himself.
The reading of the epistles in the regular liturgies of the church
today can be traced back to the early church, which treasured the
apostolic messages and incorporated .them immediately into their
worship services. Paul tells the Colossians (4:16) to exchange le:ters
with the Laodiceans and to read them publicly. Whenever the church
reads Paul's letters in a public worship, it indicates its willingness to
accept his apostolic authority. In the first century the apostolic office
permeated the church through the personal Presence of the a~ostlesl
their assistants, and their letters. Today whenever the apostolic letters
are read, their authority is still recognized- It is the only basis for the
church and for its theology.
Chapter 3
The Use of Letters as the Extension
of Apostolic Authority
In the world of the first century, letters were commonly used to exer-
cise authority. For example, Saul carries letters from-the high priest
(Acts 9:1 ff.). The New Testament Scriptures themselves consist i n part
of letters. What is more, they make reference to other letters, sonle ot
which we have and others which we do not have. 1.etters were used in
the church earlier than is usually supposed. The decisions of the apos-
tolic council in Jerusalem, which met probably some time during the
fifth decade of the first century, were carried by letter to the congrega-
tion in Antioch. The content o[ this letter, containing largely the words
of James, is recorded in Acts 15:23-29. At the reception of the letter in
Antioch, the congregation there is said to have rejoiced at the cxhorta-
tion. (V. 31)
The two letters addressed to the Corinthian congregdtion indicate
that there was considerable correspondence between if and Paul (1 Cor.
5 9 ; 163). Some have posited four letters to the church at Corinth. This
might even be a low estimate. (According to some scholars there are
"lost" letters which today are not in our New Testament canon. Thc
congregation at Laodicea received a letter-so i t would scern according
to Colossians 4:16-which is not extant today, unless i t is Ephesians.)
In Second Corinthians 10 Paul, in defending his own absence from the
congregation, states that Christians there might be inclined to believe
that he likes to send letters because he is fearful of making a personal
appearance in the congregation. Such a remark points to letters as an
accepted means of expressing apostolic authority. (V. 9 ff.)
At the end of the first century, John is ordered to write a letter to
each of the seven churches in Asia Minor. Thesc letters can be found in
the first three chapters of the Book of Revelation. I t is quite possible
that these letters were individually sent to each of these congregations.
Each letter had obvious apostolic force. The frequent warnings of judg-
ment yet to come and the eschatological references are quite obviously
the words of an apostle, for a mark of the apostolic message is that i t
does not only have force for the time when i t was written but that i t is
valid till Jesus comes.
The entire church in all times is to thrive on the apostoljc message
The apostolic message, in word and letter, is eschatological. The point
that should be made clear here is that in the apostolic age letters were
not only a legitimate but also a common mear.s of spreading the apos-
tolic message and of asserting apostolic authority. The Scriptures which
we call the New Testament today are copies and translations of these
apostolic letters.
The various questions pertaining to the number and nature of
letters written can be left to more thoroughgoing New Testament
studies. There are however two questions that must be discussed here
because they could cause difficulty. The first question is: What about
the "lost letters" of the apostles? Why didn't some of the extant letters
get into our Bibles? The second question deals with alleged forgeries.
"LOSTLETTERS"
The question about "lost" apostolic letters is a moot one. The very
fact that they are "lost" precludes the possibility of discussing their
contents. There is no definite reason why some written material sur-
vived and other material was eventually lost. While there is no firm
evidence that there were writings of the other apostles other than those
represented in the New Testament canon, it still cannot be denied that
the apostles exerted their mission and authority through both oral
preaching and written letters.
What can be said of Paul can possibly be said of the other apostles,
and surely of Peter and John. Since we do not know the nature of the
"lost" letters, we can not know why they were not preserved. Both the
questions and the answers are highly speculative. In some cases it
appears that some of the known letters were incorporated in other
material. For example, the letter from the apostolic council in Jerusalem
to the congregation at Antioch was at least partially recorded in Acts 15;
and John's letters to the seven churches can be found in the Book of
Revelation. Rather than have individual copies made of each of the
seven letters, the entire Book of Revelation was copied. This was simply
a matter of convenience.
The letters which did survive might have had a literary excellence
that :he other material did not have. Lukc in :he prolog to his Gospc!
indicates a type of literary profusion ill the early church which he at-
tempts to put in order. Thus Luke's life of Jesus might have survived
simply because of its lucid style. Given the hypothesis that today an
apostolic writing should be found, a writing which has all the marks of
apostolic authenticity, including doctrinal agreement with the extant
canon, this writing would be a totally valid authority for the church and
its theology. Since no such writing has been found to date, little time
should be spent on this hypothetical question.
FORGERIES
The second question has to do with forgeries. There are gospels
attributed to Peter and Thomas, and the latter one has been recently
found. Most of these apocryphal writings date from the second century
or later. Even though the apostolic forgeries extant today come from the
post-apostolic period, there was a type of forgery even during the life-
time of the apostles. In 2 Corinthians 11:13 Paul speaks about "false
apostles . . . disguising themselves as apostles of Christ." Without the
benefit of photographs, apostolic credentials could easily be forged and
used by anyone so inclined. Apparently the Corinthian congregation
had recognized as apostles men who were obviously impostors.
The false apostles were parallel to the false prophets in the Old
Testament. They were men who claimed all the authority that belonged
only to Jesus' legitimate representatives. They were engaged in the
same ecclesiastical activity as though they were real apostles, but they
did it without a legitimate commission and they preached a false
gospel. If the real apostles preached and wrote, so did the false apostles.
Many congregations in the early church were probably taken in by the
forged credentials, but they immediately expelled them when they
found them to be impostors. For the same reason the apocryphal litera-
ture did not make it into our New Testament. In some places the
churches accepted these writings because they had the apparent marks
of apostolicity. But when the forgery was detected, such literature was
immediately eliminated. The critical question which the earliest Chris-
tian congregations asked of these writings was one of apostolicity.
What was apostolic was a product of the Holy Spirit. The reverse was
not necessarily true.
no mention of the intermediaries. Luke, a Gentile, on the other hand,
graphically describes the situation as it took place. Matthew describes
it as a business transaction involving only Jesus and the centurion.
Also the parable of the unjust steward is the story of a shaliach who is
in charge of the financial affairs for a certain business man. At the news
of his dismissal h e cleverly reduces the amounts of money on the bills
owed his employer. After it is done, there is nothing that the employer
can do, because the word of the shaliach, as long as he holds the office,
is final (Luke 16:l-10). The employer is bound to it.
Paul is perhaps the most famous shaliach, or apostle, of Jesus
Christ. His call to the apostleship provides an interesting case study. At
the time of his conversion o n the road between Jerusalem and Damas-
cus he was acting as the emissary, or shaliach, of the high priest with
full authority to carry out persecutions against the Christians (Acts 9:
1-2). From being an "apostle" of the enemies of Christ, the Jewish rulers
in Jerusalem, he is turned into an apostle of Christ. Ironically, the same
man who carried letters from the high priest for the destruction of the
church now writes letters for the establishment, instruction, and edi-
fication of the church.
The office of the shaliach or "apostle" can be traced back into the
religious context o f the Old Testament world also. Both of these words
come from verbs which mean "send," and the noun forms of both have
the general meaning of "sent one." A term used for the commission-
ing of a prophet is shalach, "to send." The call of Moses, described in
Exodus 3, uses a form of shalach, or "send." The word has both his-
torical and theological significance. At a given time in history God
calls Moses and sends him to lead Israel. The sending of Moses has also
a theological meaning. By being sent by God Moses becomes God's
representative almost in the same sense that the apostles later become
the representatives of Jesus. The point here is not that the commission-
ing of Moses should be understood in the light of the later apostolic
call, but that the apostolic commissioning is in a sense parallel to the
commissioning of Moses. In other words, an apostle became what
Moses once was: a "sent one."
The actual commissioning of Moses as the first prophet to the
nation of Israel is found in Exodus 3:13-15. Moses is to be received by
the Hebrews because the "I AM," who also identifies Himself as the
God of the patriarchs, has sent him. The actual authority of Moses is
found in his being sent from God. Like the shaliach, deputy, or am-
bassador in later Judaic life and culture, Moses speaks and acts in the
name of the One w h o sent him, in this case, God. What is important is
that from this time on the words of Moses will qualify as the words of
God because of the commission which Moses has received. Moses'
office as shaliach or "apostle" is essentially a speaking one, and Moses
is quite obviously disturbed about his own speaking ability, an abso-
lute necessity in carrying out the office (Ex. 4:lO-17). God solves this
problem by saying that the words He puts into Moses' mouth he can in
turn put in Aaron's mouth. Moses becomes "god" to Aaron; Aaron
becomes "apostle" for Moses. The speaking for another includes both
message and commission. The thought of sharing the prophetic com-
mission will become important later in the New Testament, where men
like Timothy, Titus, Luke, and Mark share in the apostolic commission
of Peter and Paul.
The other prophets in the Old Testament are pictured as being
sent directly by God, as was Moses. Just in passing, reference could be
made to the call of Isaiah, with the prophet responding to the request
of God with: "Send me" (6%). Here Isaiah places himself willingly
under God's commission to be a prophet. Later Judaism, as was men-
tioned previously, always considered the shaliach just as if the person
who sent him were actually there. The prophet is sent by God as His
own personal representative. The prophetic Word is by definition the
Word of God. The etymology for the word "prophet" suggests one who
speaks for God. Jesus endorses this by saying: "For he whom God has
sent utters the words of G o d (John 3:34). If the concern in the New
Testament was: "Which writings are of apostolic origin?" the question
for the Old Testament people of God was: "Which writings are of
prophetic origin?'The question is not only whether a writing was
inspired but also whethcr it came from a prophet.
Though the Old Testament understood the prophets as being sent
from God, it never explicitly gives them the title shaliachs, "the sent
ones." In later Judaism it was a quite normal and natural development
that some of the prophets would actually be called shaliachs. The rabbis
gave Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel the honorary title of shaliach,
because as ambassadors of God they had done miracles which God had
reserved for Himself.
Many other references could be taken from Biblica! and extra-
Biblical material to demonstrate the familiarity that the Jews had with
this office. It was part of both their religious and secular history. For
example, in 2 Chronicles 17:7-9 Jehoshaphat is pictured as sending
princes and Levites to instruct the inhabitants of Judah in the Torah. In
Esther 9:20 Mordecai sends letters to the Jews in Babylon to celebrate
a feast. Such cases can be multiplied. When Jesus sent the Twelve as
His apostles, He was following a procedure that the Jews knew very
well. First they were called, then sent.
In His preaching Jesus seems to indicate that the prophets of the
Old Testament were "apostles," or those sent. In the parable of the
rebellious workers in the vineyard (Matt. 21:33-41) the word "send" is
used prominently in connection with the servants. The vineyard is
Israel, the servants are the prophets, the workers are Jews, and the son
is Jesus. Both the servants and the son are described as being sent.
They are, in other words, "apostles" of God, acting in God's stead
and with His authority. In His lament over Jerusalem Jesus speaks
about the Jews who have killed the prophets and stoned those who
were sent. Here is a Hebrew parallelisn~;by those killed and stoned
Jesus means the prophets, the "sent ones." When the writer to the
Hebrews calls Jesus an Apostle (3:l) he is only developing a designa-
tion which Jesus applied to Himself and the prophetsin the parable of
the rebellious workers.
THFC P E A ~ I V
WE~h'll
T H E WORDA S GOD S P F A K I ~ C
The problem \\ hlch must be solved h t r c 1s whether thc direct
speaking 01 Cod w ~ t h~ n d i v ~ d u a lins a type of convers,lt~nncan be
separated from the a p 0 5 f @ h word
~ Prophets In lhc {Jld -[citamt.nt arc
frequently p~ctured as h o l d ~ n gconversat~ons with C j r d (Exodus 3,
Isaiah 6). In many other places there is the reference that "the Word
of the Lord came" to a certain prophet. This is a clue that, as there
must be a Liistinctioil brtwettn the propiletic word and the direct Word
of God to the prophet, so there must be a similar distinction between
the direct Word of God and the apostolic word.
if the prophetic or apostolic word is always the Word of God in the
same sense as the direct speaking of God is His Word, then in every
conversatioi~between God and a prophet God would be speaking with
Himself. This is not only a somewhat ludicrous thought but it also
overlooks that the Scriptures in every case teach clearly the individual-
ity of the prophet or apostIe in his dealings with God. Frequently the
passages speaking about the Word of God coming to a prophet are
used to demonstrate that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Certainly
the Scriptures are the Word of God, but the use of such passages has
sometimes served to cloud the issue and to obscure a distinction which
the Scriptures themselves make.
A plea is made here for the distinction between the direct Word
of God to prophets or apostles and the authoritative proclamation of
this Word to God's people by these men. Many of the direct commands
of God to His spokesmen are repeated authoritatively in the apostolic
Scriptures. I t inight be safe to hazard the opinion that God spoke more
to these men than what is recorded. In repeating these words from God,
the writers expressed them in the idiom most common to them. The
Scriptures therefore repeat direct words of God along with the authori-
tative explanation of these words. The application of these words is the
task of an apostle. The supervision of the church is his obligation, and
he carries it out with the personal freedom allowable within the
limitations of his office. Paul in First Corinthians makes the distinction
between directly revealed words of God and his own interpretation,
which is the authoritative Word of God tor the church. In chapters
9 through 15 he speaks about receiving directives from the Lord o n
matters dealing with his salary (9:14), the silence of women (14:34-39),
the Lord's Supper (11:23),and the resurrection of Jesus (15:3).What w e
have then in the letter itself is the direct Word of God to I'aul applied
to particular situations in the congregation. Though a distinction is
made between the direct Word of God to the apostle and the authorita-
tive explanation to the congregation, the Christian congregation, in
the first century and now, must satisfy itself with the apostolic Word to
find God. Paul as an apostle or shaliack is God's final court of appeals
for His church.
A somewhat more ticklish problem is that of "apostolic advice."
In certain places Paul makes suggestions concerning which he has
very strong personal feelings, but he in no way absolutely insists that
these things be done. Chapter 7 of First Corinthians is full of mar-
ital and conjugal advice. After a few words on limited abstinence in
marriage, Paul says: "I say this by way of concession, not command"
(v.6). The questions of il~arriageand celibacy are handled in a similar
way in the rest of the chapter. Paul has strong feelings o n these matters,
but he does not raise his opinions to the level on which eschatologica!
judgment will be made. The covering of the head of women would also
fit into the category of apostolic advice (11:16). Now apostolic advice,
like all other types of advice, is neither right nor wrong. Paul is merely
exercising the pastoral part of his apostolic office and is making sugges-
tions for a given situation on the basis of his own experience. H e does
not condemn Peter for having a wife ( 9 5 ) .In fact, Paul says that he him-
self has the right to a wife. When the church has passed from its start
in mission stations to a more settled congregational life, he even sug-
gests marriage for the clergy in First Tirnothy and Titus.
Paul recognizes that in certain situations some things are prefer-
able to others. Jesus gives a warning concerning women with infants
at the breast when Jerusalem would b e destroyed (Matt. 24:19). Still
these words should not be considered an absolute prohibition against
having children. Several words of Jesus and His apostles are simply
advice. Today too a pastor or Christian layman endowed with wisdom
can offer sound advice in keeping with the principles given by God and
the circumstances of the present situation. 'The Messianic office of
Jesus and the apostolic office of the disciples enable them to give advice
more in keeping with God's will, but this advice should never be made
a matter of conscience. While the apostolic Scripture records for us this
advice in an authoritative way,,advice remains advice.
The word "canon" is the technical term for the number of books in our
Bible. Frequently i t is contended that the canon was not determined
till the Council of Carthage in A. D. 393. The impression is left that this
was a decision of the church and that the church determined what the
Bible is. This is a throwback to the rontroversies of the post-Reforma-
tion period when Roman Catholics used such arguments to assert the
church's supremacy over Biblical interpretation. They argued that it
was the church which determined the canon. Much of New Testament
literary criticism finds this view very compatible, since it views the
New Testament as a literary production of the early church. Rudolf
Bultmann's idea that prraching is the basis of Christian thrology fits
quite comfortably into the claim that the church established the canon.
DELEGA.I.ION OF AUTHOHI.I,Y
THEAPOSTOLIC ASSISTANTS
A similar situation prevailed in the early church. The decree of the
Council of Jerusalem was carried to Antioch not only by letter but by
personal emissaries sent by James (Acts 15:30; Gal. 212). The Book of
Acts a n d the writings of Paul give us the best exampies of how an apos-
tle worked through assistants. The apostles were given the task of es-
tablishing the church. But as their tasks grew, they gathered around
themselves a iarge group of assistants. On the journey taking Paul into
Europe, he was assisted by Timothy, Luke, and Silas (Acts 16). All of
these men with the exception of Luke are mentioned in several saluta-
tions of Paul's letters as co-authors. Membership in the apostolic circle
was not permanent, as was the office of an apostle. Mark was on the
first Pauline journey for a part of the time but was refused membership
in the apostolic circle for the second journey. L.att.r he joined both P'iul
and Peter in Rome. Titus and Timothy were later separated from Paul
and were made the pastors of congrega!ions. As pastors they did not
share in Paul's apostolic authority, but they certainly were under his
apostolic supervision. This is evident from the fact that Paul could
write letters to them with certain definite directives.
The first actual task of the apostolic circle around Paul and other
apostles was to help them establish the church. AII entire volume could
be written showing when and how often Paul sent Timothy and Titus
to Corinth to exercise apostolic supervision over a congregation which
showed an obvious need for it. The names of the other nien are scat-
tered throughout the writings of Paul and Peter. Romans 16 mentions
Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, along with Tertius who wrote Paul's
letter. Colossians lists Aristarchus, Mark, Tychicus, and Epaphras.
Silvanus, who is probably the Silas associated with Paul and Mark,
showed up in Romc with Peter and Mark. Paul i ~ Rome . had Luke wi!h
him but wanted Mark. The Epistles can be screened for more names.
All of these men at one time or another in their adult careers
assisted Paul and Peter in establishing and building up the church.
What was common practice for these apostles must have also been
common practice for the other apostles. There is n o definite knowledge
concerning the others. But this should not be disturbing, for even of
the apostolic careers of Peter and Paul only portions are given u s in
any detail. The close connection between the apostles, even when they
were not together, can be shown in that some of the same assistants
apPe2: with both Feter and Pau!. Thcic assistznts !nust !lave been
f o u n d in ever): corner o i tlic elnpirc '15 they engaged in missionary
work and handled eccles~asticaldifficulties In the name of thosc apostles
whose history i: not rccc>rdec!.
Along with the actual p r e ' i c h i n ~t,i+ics. t h e w men also assisted the
apostles in writing. Tertius wrote Roni,~n\i o ~Paul Sosthenes helped
write a letter to Corinth. and Timoth\. anotlicr The wrrtrl.ot Galatians
is not mentioned, but someone must have d o n e the writing for Paul
since h e wrote his greeting 1' 1 the cnd (6.11). N o helper i b mentioned
for Ephesians. 1-rniothy assrsted I'aul with I'l~ilippians,ind Colossians,
a n d along with S ~ l v a n u swrote the t w u lettei-s t i 1 'flics<nlon~ca.K o
assistants are namcld in connectron with tlie I',istor-nl Letters.
That Paul d i d not pen sorlle letter5 with h i s owrt hand IS not
disturbing, for tlie letters <ire still hls What is m o r t . ~t need not be
disturbing to allow a ~ ~ . e ' i t role
e r (beyond I7e1nl; mere secret~irres)tor
Paul's assistants, because hc also used otlicr-s in pcrson,tlly carrying
out the rest of his apostolic authority Tiic I ~ t c r a r ystylc of the f ' d ~ r i i ~ l ~
letters may have been ~nlluencedby thosc assisting I'aul at t h e time.
Timothy appeascd s o Irequently w ~ t hl'a~11ttt,tt r t [night br. s.tte to
hazard the theory that rnore of his own st\.lrstrc and terrn~nological
imprint can be found in the eplstles than w.is previously ~-ecuy,nr~ecl,
for surely I'aul conferred wit11 his ,ts>istants beiore writing hi5 cpiitlcs
What they discussed tc>gcther may well have tounci its w,iy Into the
epistles Paul wrote. Some have sclught to explain tlrc dl-astrcall) differ-
ent styles btbtween Firs! and Second rcter by iayin): Ihat ttic influence
o f Silvarius is I-!aticeahlc in !he first letter, wllilc F'etc!- did t h r secolld
o n e by hin~seli.These are all thoughts that should righttully b e devel-
o p e d by the science of S e w l'estarncnt Iril~oilui-tion Clearlv many
persons had a h a n d in c,rrrying out thr apvstoiic actrvitv, rncluding
(at least indirectly) tlie writing of the Sci-ipturc:. a s the lasting products
of the apostles.
W i t h ~ nthis framework, answers pointing to apostoirs connection
can now b e supplied ior Mark and ~ . u k e - ~ c tpeter s. recerves an lln-
place in -Mark's Cospei. I-iis place 1s pl.ominent hut ni:t !=3
complimentary. Both Secortd '1'imo:hy (4: 1 1 ) and First Pet?!. (5.17 )
connect Mark with Ronie. Church Lradilion associatcs him pronilnentlv
with the death of I'eter. Peter's reference to leaving behind a n accounl
of Jesusr life after his own death could possibly indicate preparations
for the writing of the gospel attributed traditionally lo Mark. ( 2 Peter
]:IS)
T h e writer of Luke-Acts, generally thoclght to he L.~rke.1s int~mately
associated with Paul in Acts and in Second 'I lmothy. The w r ~ t e ro i
Acts accompanied Paul on the second missionary jo~irneyand o n the
trip to imprison~nentin Ronie. t4e was with Paul as h e awaited trial.
AS Paul faced almost certain d e , ~ t h .L u l r is cxpl~ritlymentioned as
being with him. Kegardless of whether .I man by the name oi Luke is
actually the author, which is highly probable, the ending of Acts
indicates that the book was written iron1 Rolne. T h r o u ~ hthe constant
u s e of "we," beginning at Acts 16, the w1.1tt.r clailns ic)r himsrlf intimate
association with Paul in the apostol~coffice. O l course. 311 this a s s u n ~ e s
that Luke and Acts are written by the a m t . author. a cl.lcn1 which the
prolog to Acts makes. Whether the reader accepts ttlesr c i a ~ m sI S
another question. Nevertheless the cla!m\ are made.
Paul calls lames a pillar of t h e churcl7 ' l h ~ she ,%,lid117 ii~nnrxct:clrlM. iih
h i s trip to Jerusalem, the place wrth \\.hicIi the ~ninistryof 1~n1c.s1 5
associated, a t least according to tht, ,lc.iount oi tllc I t , r - u b i ~ l c ~Counrii m
ir. Acls 15.
How then 'lid Jalnes q u d l i f v J~ Lln. l ~ ~ ~ ~I tl tl dlL{ i ~ ' i~i!tnc>i on;?: 4.;
t h e events in the o f J e s u s and thus tult:i!s one r>l Iht' i l ~ L ' ~ t ~ l i ;
requirements set forth in ;\its 1 . U11t m o r c , l ~ k rI',Iu! ht' ~ ' 1 5(-,liic<li.1.
Christ to the apostolic office thc I . ( ? ~ U ~ ~ C C ~ I'l'h?
O ~ f,?it :il,ll ['el:;;
numbers himseli with Peter a n d Ialnci as rccciv~ni:s ~ I ! < . I inLllvldu.li ~I~
APOSTOLIC INFALLIBILITY
Inherent in the apostolic office is also the element ot the Si.riptures'
infallibility. Cod is truthful a n d the Scriptures are Cod's Word; thcre-
fore the Scriptures are truthful or infdlIiblc. This is a perfectly good
theological syllogism. Consideratirrn of the office of the apostle czn
give this concept deeper meaning. An aposllc as Jesus' representative
never allows anyone to question his office and message. His message
i s above any questions that might cast doubt o n it. (The reference here
is to the apostolic activity in the church and not to the initial preaching
to the unbeIievcrs.) The apostles do not .lrgue their authority over the
church; they asscrt it. Paul does not argue his apostoiic authority but
states it. Once it is acknowledged, his word is not open to investiga-
tion. At Berea (Acts 17:10 ff.) his message is measured against the Old
Testament, but the Bereans at this time had not yet becollie Christians,
f o r they are described as "Jews." Among Christians there is no ques-
tioning of the .~pus!olicciHicc. :ilc ..::-1: '.: l a l s c .'apcs:!cs" ii' the
church at Corint!? s h c ! \ ~ r s tile i!nul,i-ta,;:-t- tilt' ofiirr,. I t .~lsoshows
0 '
:C CONSC~S:;:;~:.~.:.
APOSTOI ; j i~xi.lil;.iMc. \,
that thc body ot Irs~ls':I.IL~ bcc.11 5tole1.ii,\ :;ilcficrs bril>cci b y the iocal
ecclesiastirai nificia!~.1 i ~ c ,~ r - l r t .oir !I!(: I ,,::!t!i i.;o>pclh ~ : ,O?'VIC)US fear
that sotneono might c;ili t1:i' c.nti1.c !JI>(I;. .1 ; i i ~ ~, ) ~ . I . . I I I . ; C a t !he :,c.r-y r:ld of
the book ( 2 l : l - l ) IIC cIc~!.;nsi~i;i: i : ; I - i : ( ~ k ~ , ' Illis 1 5 l h c d i s c i ~ . ~ who lc is
bc'jrin): witi;t.ss to !hcsc !hi:>:;, An:: cvi:o i,.li 1.: I llten the:;t> thr~lgs;a n d
we know tha! his tesiirnony ;:. : I - # I ~ > \.\;h<~t
some had yucstionrd i i ? ~rcliai,~i~ti
fj-re N e w Testaixclli c a n b c ci:r?2.:ci~':t:J
"
? i l i l f s , ~ ~ C I : . ~: O
i ~ ~ - ~
~IC
-
tra!: fhi5 incan except that
I I, ~C! ; ' I ~ CMuch
,;~1o;tc1lir,~l>c\lc,ge:icin this
? of