|
FIRST APOSTLES |
NEXT
GENERATION OF APOSTLES |
| Initially based in Jerusalem
(Acts 8:1; 15:2) |
·
Spread throughout the Empire
(Acts 17:6; Col. 1:6; 1Thess. 1:8) |
| ·
Establishment of sound doctrine
(Acts 2:42; 2Tim 1:13) |
·
Defence of sound doctrine
(1Tim. 6:2; Phil. 1:27; Jude 3) |
| ·
Oversaw the establishment of churches
(Acts 8:14; 15:4) |
·
Oversaw churches
(Titus 1:5) |
| ·
Trained by the Lord
(Mark 3:14) |
·
Trained by apostles
(Acts 15:22, 40; 1Cor. 4:17) |
| ·
Apprehensive to accept Gentile conversions
(Acts 10:45; 11:1-2) |
·
Focussed on Gentile conversions
(Acts 13:46; Gal. 2:7) |
©
2001 Andrew Corbett, Legana, Tasmania, Australia, 7277
THE DEATH OF THE APOSTLES
Thus
Nero publicly announcing himself as the chief enemy of God,
was led on his fury to slaughter the Apostles. Paul is therefore
said to have been beheaded at Rome, and Peter to have been
crucified under him.
Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History
All
of the apostles died within the first century of the Christian
era. Apart from John (who died of old age in Ephesus in
96AD), all were martyred. From an initially reluctant launch
into world evangelisation, they did remarkably well. Not
only did they establish churches throughout the Empire,
they extended into regions far beyond the grip of Rome.
According to Professor McBirnie (The Search For The Twelve
Apostles): Peter evangelised Babylon; Andrew evangelised
Scythia (Russia) and was martyred in Greece by crucifixion
in 69AD; Philip preached in Scythia for twenty years, then
in Hierapolis, Phrygia, where he was martyred (crucified
and stoned while bound to the cross) aged 87; Bartholomew
preached in India, travelled to Armenia and was martyred
in 68 AD in Albanus (flayed to death while crucified upside
down); Thomas established churches in the Middle East, and
India, and was martyred there (lanced by servants of King
Mizdi); Matthew evangelised Asiatic (not African) Ethiopia
and was martyred by decree of the Jewish Sanhedrin (Babylonian
Talmud, 43a); James, the Less, evangelised Syria and
was martyred in Jerusalem (stoned); Thaddaeus went eastward
to Persia, and was martyred in Syria; and Simon evangelised
northern Africa, and possibly Britain as well eventually
being crucified in Persia.
The
fate of the Twelve is mentioned so that we can bring the
New Testament early Church’s leadership commitment into
sharp focus. It is one thing to state that the marks of
an apostle are signs, wonders, and miracles (2Cor. 12:12),
but can not overlook the two most obvious marks of an apostolic
leader: endurance and martyrdom. These leaders were
not quitters. They were prepared to die for their cause,
and most of them did.
©
2001 Andrew Corbett, Legana, Tasmania, Australia, 7277
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
But
in striving to maintain sound doctrine and unity, the role
of the bishop changed from its original concept of an elder/overseer.
In the absence of the first century apostles, who formed
the critical function in the leadership structure of the
Primitive Church, the second century Church was now void
of this vital functional leadership. The Church has always
been reluctant to foist the title apostle on anyone
other than those mentioned in the New Testament. But it
will be seen that the leadership structure of the early
New Testament Church was more than a foundational structure:
it was a divinely ordered, prescriptive leadership structure.
Consequently, when the first century apostles died, there
arose a need to fill the void. And it was the bishops of
the churches that organised themselves to fill the void.
By
the turn of the second century, Bishops justified their
rightful place to succeed the apostles by arguing that although
all bishops (episkopos) were elders (presbuteros), not all
elders were bishops.
The Church of Rome has always stated that Peter was the
first Bishop of Rome. This position then unconsciously identified
succeeding bishops as the rightful successors to the original
apostles. While all bishops were originally considered equal,
and thus succeeding the original apostles, the bishop of
Rome came to a unique prominence due to the church’s size,
strategic location, and belief that the succeeding bishops
replaced Peter who was the founding ‘rock’ of the Church.
This
theory of ministry (apostolic succession) in the church
did not arise before A.D. 170-200. The Gnostics claimed
to possess a secret tradition handed down to them from the
apostles. As a counterclaim the Catholic church pointed
to each bishop as a true successor to the apostle who had
founded the see and therefore to the truth the apostles
taught.
The
main point to be made about the belief in apostolic succession,
is that in the second century the term bishop came
to be a synonym for the governmental aspect of the first
century apostle. While the first century apostles are assigned
a unique place of honour in the history of the Church, the
reality is that their governing ministry was continued by
the newly defined bishops of the second century. Because
these bishops rose above their brother elders within each
church, they are identified as monarchical bishops.
Eventually these monarchical bishops rose even higher in
authority than their former co-elders by becoming responsible
for several local churches. They consequentially fulfilled
the original governmental apostolic function even more closely.
Professor
Chadwick feels that there were four factors in the rise
of the monarchical bishop:
...among
the presbyter-bishops one rose to a position of superiority,
and acquired the title ‘bishop’ while his colleagues are
called ‘presbyters’. Four factors helped to bring this
about. The first distinctive right naturally assigned
to the senior member of the presbyter college was the
power to ordain. This became his prerogative. Secondly,
correspondence between churches was normally carried on
by the presiding presbyter-bishop. Thirdly, on the solemn
occasion of an ordination, leaders from other communities
would come as representatives of their own congregations
and would take part in the laying on of hands and prayers
which conferred the power of the Spirit and the authority
of the community as the body of Christ...Finally, the
crisis of the Gnostics sects showed the manifest necessity
of a single man as the focus of unity.
Initially,
there was a clear understanding that bishops were the custodians
of apostolic doctrine, and the churches they had founded.
But by the middle of the third century, the bishop of Carthage,
Cyprian (248-58) openly advocated that bishops were the
personal successors of the apostles. Theologically, we are faced with two glaring
problems to this teaching. Firstly, the New Testament makes
no mention of succession (diadoché) of the
apostolic authority by the laying on of hands and prayer
(as the Roman Church teaches). Secondly, the idea is absent
for most of the second century, which presumably would be
the critical period for this teaching’s development. But
the fact remains that the redefined bishops of the
second century did fill the void created by the death of
the first apostles. Eventually the Roman Church narrowed
their doctrine of apostolic succession to the bishop
of Rome.
The
danger in refuting the erroneous doctrine of apostolic
succession is that we may view the ministry of the apostle
as limited to the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, and ignore
that the ministry of the apostle has actually continued
within the church regardless. Thus Hans Küng could be considered
to inadvertently eisegete the ministry of the apostle while
refuting apostolic succession -
As
direct witnesses and messengers of the risen Lord, the apostles
can have no successors...Apostleship in the sense of the
original and fundamental ministry of the first witnesses
and messengers died out with the death of the last apostle.
The
rise of the bishop’s prominence through the second century,
to assume the governmental aspects of the original apostles,
is a strong argument for suggesting that the apostle was
intended as a universal, rather than as a dispensational
ministry. That is, the rise of the bishop tends to indicate
that the function of the original apostles was a divinely
ordained ministry of Church leadership for all time.
The
History of Apostles Continued
...............
