THE SIGNS OF AN APOSTLE: THE CATO LECTURE 1969, by C. K. Barrett

A Brief Book Summary from Books At a Glance

by Steve West

 

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Apostles in the New Testament
The Apostolicity of the Church

 

Summary

 

Introduction

There have recently been some publications concerning the apostles and apostolicity which have been quite helpful, and others which have been deleterious and muddled. Anyone interested in the history of the church and the New Testament cannot ignore questions and issues about the apostles, and this subject is also important for the life and practice of the contemporary church. Given the Jewish and rabbinic significance of the term “apostle,” the term can denote someone who is authorized and sent by another in such a way that the one sent embodies the full authority of the one who sent them. There are a range of meanings for the term, and historical context is crucial for how it is deployed. An apostle’s dignity and authority are not intrinsic, and their message is not of their own origin. Only Jesus could send a personal apostle, and the apostles’ authority is inseparable from their message. It is important, however, not to leap too quickly from the Jewish meaning of the term to conclusions that bypass the historical processes that were operative in the early church.

In the Book of Acts and in Paul’s letters to Corinth, we face questions about the meaning of apostleship and the practical reality of what the apostolic ministry entailed. In our contemporary world, there are many questions about the authenticity of the church and the church’s doctrine. Theologians must do hard historical work to see what the church has taught but avoid blindly following or parroting the formulated statements of the past. Many people talk about church denominations merging together, and ecumenical unity, and this puts fresh urgency into questions about church form and government. Churches are institutions, so what kind of institutional organization should they have? Do churches have the liberty to cast their own forms, or must a true church have the same form in every instance? Or is the current situation too complex for that dichotomy? No church is a church if it is not the church of Jesus Christ, and we only know of Christ through the witness of the apostles. This returns us to the crucial question, “Who were the apostles?”

 

The Apostles in the New Testament

The Gospels record the existence of “the Twelve” but their lists of names vary. They also reveal that Jesus had many more disciples than this group of twelve. It is entirely possible that the theological significance of the number was more important than the exact count of individuals. This tradition was extremely early, with Paul mentioning it in 1 Corinthians 15. Jesus explicitly identified the twelve as reigning over the twelve tribes of Israel, and Judas Iscariot is mentioned as one of that number (a tradition that would never have been lightly invented). Jesus saw his disciples as sharing in his time of suffering and therefore also sharing in his eschatological glory. Even inside the Twelve there was an inner circle, and the larger group may not have had a static membership during the life of Jesus.

For our purposes, we need to inquire as to whether or not the Twelve were apostles, and, if they were, what the force of that designation was in their case. The Gospels record that Jesus sent out his disciples on mission journeys, and after his resurrection he instructed them to take the gospel to the Gentile nations. It is at this juncture that Paul must be considered. There was the Twelve plus Paul (he is never said to be a replacement for Judas). And what about Silas or Barnabas? Was there the Twelve plus another group? How was an apostle recognized?

There is not much material in the Gospels about apostleship, but Paul reflects on his call to be an apostle and makes much of his apostolic ministry. As much as Paul was clearly convinced of his own apostleship, there were skeptics who denied it, and many of his own converts seemed indifferent to his authority. In Corinthians, Paul asserts that there are true apostles and false apostles, and the two groups can be distinguished. Paul rejected the claims of the “super-apostles” but also asserted that he did not care about those reputed to be “pillars” of the church. Paul differentiated himself from the Twelve, and in 1 Corinthians 15 he distinguishes the Twelve from other apostles. In the New Testament many of the Twelve were insignificant and did not provide relevant leadership in the churches. . . .

[To continue reading this summary, please see below....]