Tackling Tradition 22: Apostles & Prophets

Argument

In order for someone to be qualified for the office of Apostle, they must meet the following criterion:  In addition to being morally qualified like an elder/deacon ( 1 Timothy, Titus):  So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection. (Act 1:21 - 22 ESV)

Reply

The text only establishes that witness to Christ’s resurrection was **their** requirement for choosing Judas Iscariot’s replacement for church treasurer, not a universal requirement for apostolic office.    In addition, when speaking of qualifications for ecclesiastical office, the NT pattern is to speak in terms of commands.    What we have here is a statement about their immediate needs that has been extrapolated into a universal qualification for office that reasons from an example to a command.   That’s an iffy reasoning process when it comes to the Bible. They also chose church officers by casting lots.  Is that a command?  No, is an example that functions like case law.  

If the text affirms that the office of Apostle must be a bona fide eye witness to Christ’s resurrection, then it affirms that the office must be held by a male and that all candidates for office are confined to the 120 men at that location.    That reasoning commits the Is-Ought Fallacy, as it women are disqualified by virtue of their sex, not their morals. 

In truth, these people were already apostles. One of their number had to be replaced due to Judas’ duplicity.  After all, he was recently deceased. 

Judas Iscariot had kept the money bag. They voted to replace him as their treasurer, as evidenced by the identities of the 2 men out forward.   Matthew had been a tax collector.   He understood money & record keeping.   Barsabbas means “son of the Sabbath,” and Justus means “just, upright.” Joseph means “God will increase.”  He is Thaddeus (“heart, courageous), & likely Joseph of Arimathea himself.    The reason they chose men who had seen Yeshua was due to the need for covenantal & pastoral continuity as they moved from one phase of development to the next.    

The entire argument that witness to the resurrection is an absolute, universal requirement for apostolic office turns on the assumption that there were 12 literal men who coalesced around Christ, one of whom betrayed Him & needed be replaced.  In truth, Acts 1 informs us that there were 120 people who were already qualified & who were already Apostles.  They were replacing the deceased keeper of the moneybag — not laying down the rules for apostolic succession for generations to come.  Luke’s use of the term “apostle” instead of “disciple,” indicates a new phase in the growth & development of the reform movement within 2nd Temple Judaism. 

Personally, I find this argument ironic.   People make much of Acts 1, as if Peter, their leader spoke & a dramatic hush fell over the crowd after which Peter delivered his ruling.   In truth, they were behaving more like the members of a small church in the middle of Nowheresville, USA than the Sanhedrin or the Curia.   All they were really doing was choosing a new treasurer from among their own.  

Argument 

The offices of Apostle & Prophet have ceased. Therefore, there are no such people holding this office, nor will there be again until Christ returns. 

19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. (Ephesians 2:19 - 21)

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, and those with gifts of healing, helping, administration, and various tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:27 - 31)

Reply 

The text says that the Church is built on the apostles & prophets.  It does not state that was a one time series of events.   Prophets & Apostles are called and recognized in every covenant era.    Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, & John the Baptist give evidence of this.    The text of Malachi 3 & 4 prophesies over them, & it also prophesies a 7th transitional prophet who heralds Christ’s return.    

There were apostles & prophets in Adam’s day.   They were alive & well in Abraham’s day.   Melchizedek is a stellar example.  They continued to be recognized & called until Christ’s day.   Why would the covenantal pattern have changed?   There are great many built in assumptions in the argument from Cessationism.  

Pay attention to the way Cessationism argue.   The argument amounts to a response to the excesses of the Pentecostal & Charismatic movements.   It’s an argument intended to safeguard Sola Scriptura in Protestant circles &, in more liturgically minded traditions, for ecclesiastical power located in the ordinary teaching mechanisms of one or more institutions within a given communion.   

As to 1 Corinthians 12, the text is at the end of a set of statements that analogize between the human body and the structure of the Church.    Apostles & Prophets are analogous to the head & heart of the Church.    To say that these offices are no longer occupied or occupiable is analogous to painting the Church as the Headless, Heartless Horseman. 

Argument 

The signs of a true apostle are miraculous signs & wonders.    

The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.

Reply

This argument defines “signs & wonders” in stereotypically miraculous fashion — faith healing, showy offy exorcisms, and so on.  

We need to ask ourselves what the biblical definition of signs & wonders is in Romans & 1 Corinthians.   Signs & wonders are connected to the spread of the Gospel & range from what we typically consider literally miraculous to something more mundane like what Gamaliel had in mind in Acts 5, namely the rapid growth of the Way & the radical moral, philosophical, & theological changes suddenly at work among the Gentiles in particular. 

We also ought to believe & understand that these sorts of events are not always out there & visible for the world to see.   Yeshua labored in obscurity.  Jeremiah wasn’t exactly a church growth expert.    Prophets & Apostles in the Bible often met with great resistance, which is why Paul describes such people thusly: 

Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation. 3 We put no obstacle in anyone’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, 4 but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, 5 beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; 6 by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; 7 by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; 8 through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; 9 as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.

11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open. 12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. 13 In return (I speak as to children) widen your hearts also. (2 Corinthians 6: 2 - 13)

Our God Is Good!

Westminster Shorter Catechism 

God’s Goodness

An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism 
by John Flavel

Of God’s Goodness

Q. 1. What is the goodness of God?

A. It is an Essential Property of his Nature, whereby he is absolutely and perfectly good in himself, and the Fountain of all communicated goodness to the creature. Psalm 119:68. Thou art good, and dost good, teach my thy statutes.

Q. 2. How doth the goodness of God differ from the mercy of God?

A. It differs in its objects; for the Misery is the Object of Mercy; but goodness extends to the Creatures that are happy, as well as miserable: as the Angels. Psalm 145:9. The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.

Q. 3. What is the first Property of God’s goodness?

A. That all his other Attributes flow out of it as their Fountain: The other acts of God are but the Effluxes of his goodness. Exodus 33:19. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy unto whom I will show mercy. Exodus 34:6. And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.

(Note: I believe that ought to be amended slightly to read that all of God’s attributes are both perfect & perichoretic so that it can be said that all of God’s attributes perfectly & infinitely flow out of, into, around, & through each other so that they are both the influxes & effluxes of one another.)

Q. 4. What is the second Property of the Divine goodness?

A. That it is supreme, and perfect in itself. So as the goodness of no Creature is, or can be. Luke 18:19. None is good save one, and that is God: And consequently above all additions from the Creature. Psalm 16:2. O my soul, thou hast said unto the Lord… my goodness extendeth not unto thee.

Q. 5. What is the third property of God’s goodness?

A. That it is communicative with Pleasure and delight to the Creature: No Mother draws out her Breast to an hungry Child with more pleasure than God doth his goodness to the Saints. Psalm 145:9. The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.

Q. 6. In what acts hath God first manifested his goodness?

A. He hath manifested it in the Creation and Government of the World. Psalm 104:24. O Lord how manifold are thy works? in wisdom hast thou made them all.

Q. 7. What was the principal work in which God hath manifested his goodness to men?

A. The principal manifestation of God’s goodness, was in the Work of Redemption by Christ. Romans 5:8. God commended his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 1 John 4:8-9. In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten son into the world, that we might live through him.

Q. 8. But are not the judgements of God on the wicked, and his Afflictions on the Saints, impeachments of his goodness?

A. No, It is the property of goodness to hate and punish Evil in the impenitent. Exodus 34:7. Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty, etc. And the afflictions of the Saints flow from his goodness, and end in their true and eternal good. Hebrews 12:6. For whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Psalm 119:71. It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn thy statutes.

Q. 9. What may we infer from the goodness of God?

A. The first thing is, that Sin hath made our Natures base, and disingenuous, in that we take no notice of his goodness. Isaiah 1:3. The Ox knoweth his owner, and the Ass his masters crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider; And answer not the design of it. Romans 2:4. Now knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance.

Q. 10. What is the second Inference from the goodness of God?A. That therefore God is the fittest Object of our delight and love, and of our trust and Confidence. 1. Of our Delight and Love. Psalm 116:1. I love the Lord, because he hath heard my voice, and my supplication. 2. Of our trust and confidence. Psalm 34:8. O taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Q. 11. What is the third Inference from God’s goodness?

A. That Christians have great encouragement to go to God for pardon in case of sin. Psalm 130:4. But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared; and for refuge of dangers. Nahum 1:7. The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; he knoweth them that trust in him.

The Allotments Of The People (Deut. 32:8)

I recently ran across an article by Michael Heisner on the differences between the Masoretic Hebrew version of Deuteronomy 32:8 & the Septuagint reading.   

The essence of the question is “Which version is correct?  The LXX (Sons of God) or the Masoretic Hebrew (Sons of Israel)?   

He is correct that Deut. 32:8 alludes to Babel, but he’s wrong to assert that the scribes altered the text to protect God’s reputation. That’s a conspiracy theory on his part.   He ought to have known better, & in reality the scribe or scribes’ motive is irrelevant.  The doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture doesn’t specify that God protects His people from being motivated in a manner we ourselves find objectionable.   Rather, it specifies that Scripture is occasioned.  

 

Heisner theorizes that at some point, the scribe or scribes who wrote the younger text (the Masoretic) found that references to competing gods was objectionable.   Therefore, Heisner says that the older text is the preferred (correct) reading.  

By way of reply, Dr. Heisner was obsessed the composition of the Heavenly Court.   His article is a classic case of judging the text tradition in favor of his particular theological interest at the expense of the meaning of the text as a whole.     He was a continuationist, & the Bible teaches Continuationism, so I am a bit surprised that he missed what was in front of his eyes.  

The key to correctly  understanding this text works very like Matthew’s citation of Isaiah 7:14.   The Hebrew version of Isaiah reads “young woman of marriable age.”   The LXX reads, “virgin.”  Which one is correct?  

Both!  The Hebrew points us to the child born in Isaiah’s name as an answer to Ahaz.   Matthew chooses the LXX version to point us to Christ.   From a continuationist perspective, God inspired both versions & inspired Matthew to use the LXX not the Hebrew.   

With that in mind, let us consider this question: “Sons of God” is the LXX reading.  “Sons of Israel” is the Masoretic reading.  Which is correct?  Both!  I believe these 2 readings can be reconciled, insofar as God intends for us to harmonize these text variants in a way that does justice to both readings.   Remember, one of the rules for exegeting/expositng texts that are eschatological is that some words & contexts have a layered reading, insofar as they can (and often do) have more than one referent. 

The Noah narrative is a fictional story relating one or more historical events.  As to the fiction,  the story appears to include sex between fallen angels & at the root of the legendarily hybrids, the Nephilim. 

That said,  I think it’s dubious at best to conclude that the people in Genesis 6 were having sex with angels and demons on the Earth & having children with them in a literal sense. That sort of literal reading would mean that angelic or similar beings were allowed to materialize on the earth after &/or before the age of Noah.    

Sometimes modern day Christians, some of whom believe it to be necessary to defend the literal meaning of the text at all costs, act as if we’re giving away the store to the theologically liberal wing of Christendom if we agree with them that the story is fictional.  Consequently, in their desire to defend against Anti-Supernaturalism, they don’t stop to think about the biblical pattern when it comes to the appearance of angels & other such entities.  

Is there a pattern to their appearances?  How often do angels appear to people?  If fallen angels were allowed the sort of access to human beings required for a multiple pregnancies, that would mean they have had more in-person access to than angels themselves seem to have.  The biblical pattern is angelic visits are few & far between, & if demons were prone to appearing for enough to anchor the population of the Nephilim, then why doesn’t Scripture do a better job detailing these encounters?  Why do we need The Assumption of Moses or The Book of Enoch in order to equip us to handle them?   

The story is informing us that people, who were surrounded idolatry and witchcraft were dedicating themselves and their children to territorial spirits, & both demons and angels took sides.  Demons underwrote idols.  Angels defended humans and animals.  It also informs us that these were  reciprocating relationships. 

 

What does it mean for these daughters to bear children from them?  The humans on earth were dedicating children to idols through witchcraft &  demons came to both accept and reject these children.  The text is describing something akin to Molech worship, & in addition people living in that age were accustomed to their rulers claiming divine ancestry.

What sorts of activities were involved? The human “sons of God” took women and mated with them via cultic rituals.  Evil men who worshipped idols underwritten by demons, were known to kidnap, rape, & romance women who bore them children.  Sometimes the women were complicit; sometimes they were not complicit. 

They also went in to men, some of whom cross dressed & served as shrine prostitutes.  Their idols at the time took the form of animals and animalian people.  They also offered animal & human sacrifices to their gods.  Jude most certainly has this in mind when he touches on sexual immorality and strange flesh while informing us that demons do the same thing.  He is educating us about what Greco-Roman religion was doing.

Reasoning this way, we can see that from a Hellenistic (LXX) perspective, God is answering the Egyptian, Greek, & Persian pantheons & reminding them that (unlike God Himself), they are territorial pseudodeities just like those in Canaan (and anywhere else).  

From the Masorete (Hebrew) perspective, the text reminds Israel that God is the one in charge of them, the land, & everything they possess.  It also answers their competition (the Canaanites) who identify uber-closely with their tribal & territorial deities.   Remember, ancient religions worked on the principle that those pseudodeities owned & ruled different sets of people & the land & are always tribal & territorial, unlike the LORD, who is universal. 

Thus, both readings are correct.  The LXX (Sons of God)  is about competing pseudodeities and a statement about the governance of the Realm within the 24 Elders & others of whom the government of the Realm is composed.   As God has appointed & assigned the tribes of the Earth geographically, so has He assigned the members of His court any number of guardianships as an answer to the pseudodeities & others who oppose His suzerainty & the dominion of His people.  The other variant (Sons of Israel) is about the people living on the Earth —- specifically Israel & (via Representative Theology) the Nations in general. 

Micah 4:1 - 5

Micah 4:1: It shall come to pass in the latter days

that the mountain of the house of the Lord

shall be established as the highest of the mountains,

and it shall be lifted up above the hills;

and peoples shall flow to it,

2  and many nations shall come, and say:

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,

to the house of the God of Jacob,

that he may teach us his ways

and that we may walk in his paths.”

For out of Zion shall go forth the law,

and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

3  He shall judge between many peoples,

and shall decide disputes for strong nations far away;

and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,

and their spears into pruning hooks;

nation shall not lift up sword against nation,

neither shall they learn war anymore;

4  but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree,

and no one shall make them afraid,

for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.

5  For all the peoples walk

each in the name of its god,

but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God

forever and ever.  (Micah 4:1–5, ESV)

The Judgment Of The Nations

Has God imposed a suzerain covenant on the nations of this world?   Absolutely, they are viewed as vassal states to Israel.       

                 Why do the nations rage

and the peoples plot in vain?

2  The kings of the earth set themselves,

and the rulers take counsel together,

against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,

3  “Let us burst their bonds apart

and cast away their cords from us.”

4  He who sits in the heavens laughs;

the Lord holds them in derision.

5  Then he will speak to them in his wrath,

and terrify them in his fury, saying,

6  “As for me, I have set my King

on Zion, my holy hill.”

7  I will tell of the decree:

The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;

today I have begotten you.

8  Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,

and the ends of the earth your possession.

9  You shall break them with a rod of iron

and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

10  Now therefore, O kings, be wise;

be warned, O rulers of the earth.

11  Serve the Lord with fear,

and rejoice with trembling.

12  Kiss the Son,

lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,

for his wrath is quickly kindled.

Blessed are all who take refuge in him.  (Psalm 2:1–12, ESV)

 Psalm 2 informs us that God has established the throne of David as despotic ruler over all the nations, & the Covenant of Grace in general & the Davidic Covenant in particular underwrite the power & authority of the David throne. 

David’s throne represents Christ’s throne, & through Christ’s throne above & David’s on the earth, God rules the world via covenant.    

This is also a prophetic relationship, insofar as Christ is clear that the Decalogue is summarized as “Love God exhaustively & perfectly first & others exhaustively & perfectly second,” and then states that all the Law & Prophets hang on these two principles.  The Decalogue comes to us as part of a suzerainty document.  

Obadiah judges Edom.    Micah indicts Israel then proceeds to state that the Law will go out from Zion & the nations will be judged (Micah 4).  Amos opens with an oracle about the nations.   Isaiah 13 - 17 provides oracles of judgment against Babylon, Assyria, Moab; Aram, & Ephraim.   Cyrus’ throne is authorized by the LORD (Isaiah).   

The covenant with Noah provides instruction for the use of the sword in the case of murder.   The narrative also includes a fictional story about Babel, which is told in a covenantal outline, indicating that God’s relationship is a species of suzerainty.    Although there are no direct instructions for how the penalty for murder is to be executed, given Romans 13’s statement that all civil authorities are established by God & a terror to transgressors of the 2nd Table of the Law (which is representatively in the First), we can properly deduce the general principle that murder demands justice, & the particular outworking of that principle was; at that time, fit for a less centralized governmental structure that, in terms of the outworking of human history, grew more organized over time.   God doesn’t do anarchy or chaos, but He is willing to work with less organized governing structures over time.  

God deals with His people in representative fashion.   We are all in Adam & in Christ (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15), just as Levi was in Abraham (Hebrews 7).   Christ is the Redeemer - Mediator whose person & work underwrites every covenant (Hebrews, 1 Tim. 2:5), who occupies the tripartite offices of Prophet (Deut. 18), Priest (Psalm 110) & King (Psalm 2) who is superior to Moses, Abraham, & Levi (Hebrews 7) & like unto Melchizedek (Hebrews 7).  

Adam was in Christ.  Christ was in Adam.  Likewise, the transitional prophets all prefigure Christ by executing the 3 offices until Christ comes.   Therefore, Adam, Noah, Abraham,  Moses, Samuel, John the Baptist, & the last one before Christ returns (Malachi 4) are all federally (representatively) in each other.    

Therefore, via the principle of federalism, all people & of every tribe, tongue, people, & nation are federally represented by these individuals.   In addition, God’s intention for Israel was/is that they were/are intended to be a prophetic nation, a priestly nation, & a kingly nation.   The same is true of the Church.   God rules the nations by & through Israel (Psalm 2), and, has a covenantal relationship with them through the principle of federalism.     The Church is just an extension/expansion of Israel.   

God’s relationship with all living things is administered covenantally.  The Abrahamic Covenant is an expansion of the Noahic Covenant.  The Mosaic & Davidic Covenants are expansions of their previous administrations.   The Johannine Covenant expands upon its predecessors. 

The Bible also teaches the 3 uses of the Law & Gospel (individual/familial, ecclesiastical, & governmental).  All the Law & Prophets hang on the 2 Great Principles, & these principles are covenantal in essence & attributes, reflecting the existence, attributes, & authority of God (Romans 1:20). Therefore, God most certainly does relate to the nations via these covenants, not merely Israel exclusively.   

I would add that God, via meticulous providence presences us from time to time by reminding us that He has covenanted with us in unexpected ways…

In NC, our Constitution recognizes that all of our rights come from God, & that if we desire to live in the blessings of liberty, wr should live in accordance with our State Constitution.    Our Declaration of Rights states begins with a Shema & historical prologue, continues with a list of stipulations, & is its own document clause, call to live accordingly, & we are its witnesses (along with God).   All of the elements of a covenant with God & each other are there.   

May God bless us all, each & every one, and “Go & sin no more.”