Apostles ofChrist.
Under
this title it may be sufficient to supply brief and essential information. The
reader will find at the end of this article various titles of other articles
which contain supplementary information on subjects connected with the
Apostles.
The Name.
The word “Apostle,” from the Greek apostello
“to send forth,” “to dispatch,” has etymologically a very general sense. Apostolos
(Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched — in other words, who is
entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has, however, a stronger
sense than the word messenger, and means as much as a delegate.
In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In the Greek version of the
Old Testament it occurs once, in III Kings, 14:6 (cf. ibid, 12:24). In the New
Testament, on the contrary, it occurs, according to Bruder's Concordance, about
eighty times, and denotes often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of
them specially called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic
dialect, gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent
of which was “Apostle.” It seems to us that there is no reasonable doubt about
the Aramaic word being seliah, by which also the later Jews, and
probably already the Jews before Christ, denoted “those who were despatched
from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission,
especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple
service” (Lightfoot, “Galatians,” London, 1896, p. 93). The word apostle
would be an exact rendering of the root of the word seliah,= apostello.
Various Meanings.
It is at once evident that in a Christian
sense, everyone who had received a mission from God, or Christ, to man could be
called “Apostle.” In fact, however, it was reserved to those of the disciples
who received this title from Christ. At the same time, like other honourable
titles, it was occasionally applied to those who in some way realized the
fundamental idea of the name. The word also has various meanings.
The name Apostle denotes
principally one of the twelve disciples who, on a solemn occasion, were called
by Christ to a special mission. In the Gospels, however, those disciples are often
designated by the expressions of mathetai (the disciples) or dodeka
(the Twelve) and, after the treason and death of Judas, even of hendeka
(the Eleven). In the Synoptics the name Apostle occurs but seldom with
this meaning; only once in Matthew and Mark. But in other books of the New
Testament, chiefly in the Epistles of St. Paul and in the Acts this use of the
word is current. Saul of Tarsus, being miraculously converted, and called to
preach the Gospel to the heathens, claimed with much insistency this title and
its rights.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews (3:1)
the name is applied even to Christ, in the original meaning of a delegate sent
from God to preach revealed truth to the world.
The word Apostle has also in
the New Testament a larger meaning, and denotes some inferior disciples who, under
the direction of the Apostles, preached the Gospel, or contributed to its
diffusion; thus Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), probably Andronicus and Junias (Rom.16:7),
Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25), two unknown Christians who were delegated for the
collection in Corinth (II Cor. 7:23). We know not why the honourable name of
Apostle is not given to such illustrious missionaries as Timothy, Titus, and
others who would equally merit it.
There are some passages in which the
extension of the word Apostle is doubtful, as Luke 11:49; John 13:16; II
Cor. 13; I Thes. 2:7; Ephes. 3:5; Jude, 17, and perhaps the well-known expression
“Apostles and Prophets.” Even in an ironical meaning the word occurs (II Cor. 11:5;
12:11) to denote pseudo-apostles. There is but little to add on the use of the
word in the old Christian literature. The first and third meanings are the only
ones which occur frequently, and even in the oldest literature the larger
meaning is seldom found.
Origin of the Apostolate.
The Gospels point out how, from the beginning of his ministry, Jesus
called to him some Jews, and by a very diligent instruction and formation made
them his disciples. After some time, in the Galilean ministry, he selected
twelve whom, as Mark (3:14) and Luke (6:13) say, “he also named Apostles.” The
origin of the Apostolate Iies therefore in a special vocation, a formal appointment
of the Lord to a determined office, with connected authority and duties.
The appointment of the twelve Apostles is given by the three Synoptic Gospels (Mark
3:13-19; Matthew 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16) nearly in the same words, so that the
three narratives are literally dependent. Only on the immediately connected
events is there some difference between them. It seems almost needless to
outline and disprove rationalistic views on this topic. The holders of these
views, at least some of them, contend that our Lord never appointed twelve
Apostles, never thought of establishing disciples to help him in his ministry,
and eventually to carry on his work. These opinions are only deductions from
the rationalistic principles on the credibility of the Gospels, Christ's
doctrine on the Kingdom
of Heaven
§
that the
very clear testimony of the three synoptic Gospels constitutes a strong
historical argument, representing, as it does, a very old and widely spread
tradition that cannot be erroneous;
§
that the
universally acknowledged authority of the Apostles, even in the most heated
controversies, and from the first years after Christ's death (for instance in
the Jewish controversies), as we read in the oldest Epistles of St. Paul and in
the Acts cannot be explained, or even be understood, unless we recognize some
appointment of the Twelve by Jesus.
Office and Conditions of the Apostolate.
Two of the synoptic Gospels add to
their account of the appointment of the Twelve brief statements on their
office: Mark 3:14-15, “He appointed twelve to be with him and to send them to
herald, and to have power to heal the illnesses and to cast out demons”;
Matthew 10:1, “He gave them power over unclean spirits so as to expel them, and
to heal every disease and every illness.” Luke where he relates the appointment
of the Twelve, adds nothing on their office. Afterwards (Mark 6:7-13; Matthew
10:5-15; Luke 9:1-5). Jesus sends the Twelve to preach the kingdom and to heal,
and gives them very definite instructions. From all this it results that the
Apostles are to be with Jesus and to aid Him by proclaiming the kingdom and by
healing. However, this was not the whole extent of their office, and it is not
difficult to understand that Jesus did not indicate to His Apostles the
whole extent of their mission, while as yet they had such imperfect ideas of
His own person and mission, and of the Messianic kingdom. The nature of the
Apostolic mission is made still clearer by the sayings of Christ after His
Resurrection. Here such passages as Matthew, 28:19, 20; Luke 24:46-49; Acts 1:8,
21-22 are fundamental. In the first of these texts we read, “Go ye therefore
and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all I have commanded
you.” The texts of Luke point to the same office of preaching and testifying
(cf. Mark 16:16). The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles written by the
Apostles exhibit them in the constant exercise of this office. Everywhere the
Apostle governs the disciples, preaches the doctrines of Jesus as an authentic
witness, and administers the sacred rites. In order to fill such an office, it
seems necessary to have been instructed by Jesus, to have seen the risen Lord.
And these are, clearly, the conditions required by the Apostles in the
candidate for the place of Judas Iscariot. “Of the men, therefore, who have
accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
beginning from the baptism of John unto the day He was received up from us, of
these must one become a witness with us of His Resurrection”
(Acts 1:21-22). This narrative, which seems to come from an Aramaic Palestinian
source like many other details given in the earlier chapter of Acts was ancient
and cannot be set aside. It is further strengthened by an objection made to
St.Paul: because he was called in an extraordinary way to the Apostolate, he
was obliged often to vindicate his Apostolic authority and proclaim that he had
seen the Lord (I Cor. 9:1). Instruction and appointment by Jesus were,
therefore, the regular conditions for the Apostolate. By way of exception. an
extraordinary vocation, as in the case of Paul, or a choice by the Apostolic College
Authority and Prerogatives of the Apostles.
The authority of the Apostles
proceeds from the office imposed upon them by Our Lord and is based on the very
explicit sayings of Christ Himself. He will be with them all days to the end of
ages (Matthew 28:20), give a sanction to their preaching (Mark 16:16), send
them the “promise of the Father,” “virtue from above” (Luke 24:49). The Acts of
the Apostles and the Epistles of the New Testament show us the exercise of this
authority. The Apostle makes laws (Acts 15:29; I Cor. 7:12 sq.), teaches (Acts 2:37 f.), claims for his teaching that it
should be received as the word of God (I Thes. 2:13), punishes (Acts 5:1-11; I
Cor. 5:1-5), administers the sacred rites (Acts 6:1 sq.; 16:33; 20:11),
provides successors (II Tim. 1:6; Acts 14:22). In the modern theological terms
the Apostle, besides the power of order, has a general power of jurisdiction
and magisterium (teaching). The former embraces the power of making laws,
judging on religious matters, and enforcing obligations by means of suitable
penalties. The latter includes the power of setting forth with authority
Christ's doctrine. It is necessary to add here that an Apostle could receive
new revealed truths in order to propose them to the Church. This, however, is
something wholly personal to the Apostles.
Theologians rightly speak in their
treatises of some personal prerogatives of the Apostles; a brief account of
them may not be superfluous.
A first prerogative, not clearly
inferred from the texts of the New Testament nor demonstrated by solid reasons,
is their confirmation in grace. Most modern theologians admit that the Apostles
received so abundant an infusion of grace that they could avoid any error in
their teaching.
Another personal prerogative is the
universality of their jurisdiction. The words of the Gospel on Apostolic office
are very general; for the most part, the Apostles preached and travelled as if
they were not bound by territorial limits, as we read in the Acts and the
Epistles. This did not hinder the Apostles from taking practical measures to
properly organize the preaching of the Gospel in the various countries they
visited.
Apostolate and Episcopate.
Since the authority with which the
Lord endowed the Apostles was given them for the entire Church, it is natural
that this authority should endure after their death, in other words, pass to
successors established by the Apostles. In the oldest Christian documents
concerning the primitive Churches we find ministers established, some of them,
at least, by the usual rite of the imposition of hands. They bear various
names: priests (presbytero1: Acts 11:30; 14:22; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4;
20, 17; 21:18; I Tim. 5:17, 19; Titus, 1:5); bishops (episkopo1:Acts 20:28;
Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:2; Titus, 1:7); presidents (proistameno1:I Thes. 5:12;
Rom. 12:etc.); heads (hegoumeno1:Hebrews, 13:7, 17, 24, etc.); shepherds
(poimenes, Eph. 4:11); teachers (didaskalo1:Acts 13:1; I Cor. 12:28
sq. etc.); prophets (propheta1:Acts 13:1; 15:32; I Cor. 12:28, 29,
etc.), and some others. Besides them, there are Apostolic delegates, such as
Timothy and Titus. The most frequent terms are priests and bishops;
they were destined to become the technical names for the “authorities” of the
Christian community.
All other names are less important; the deacons are out of the
question, being of an inferior order. It seems clear that amid so great a
variety of terms for ecclesiastical authorities in Apostolic times several must
have expressed only transitory functions. From the beginning of the second
century in Asia Minor , and somewhat later
elsewhere, we find only three titles: bishops, priests, and deacons; the last
changed with inferior duties. The authority of the bishop is different from the
authority of priests, as is evident on every page of the letters of the martyr
Ignatius of Antioch. The bishop — and there is but one in each town — governs
his church, appoints priests who have a subordinate rank to him, and are, as it
were, his counsellors, presides over the Eucharistic assemblies, teaches his
people, etc. He has, therefore, a general power of governing and teaching,
quite the same as the modern Catholic bishop; this power is substantially
identical with the general authority of the Apostles, without, however, the
personal prerogatives ascribed to the latter. St. Ignatius of Antioch declares that this ministry holds
legitimately its authority from God through Christ (Letter to the
Philadelphians, i). Clement of Rome , in his
Letter; to the Church
of Corinth
Another and more difficult question
arises as to the Acts and in the Epistles, the various above mentioned names,
chiefly the presbyteroi and the episkopoi (priests and bishops).
Some authors (and this is the
traditional view) contend that the episkopoi of Apostolic times have the
same dignity as the bishops of later times, and that the episkopoi of
the apostolic writings are the same as the priests of the second century. This
opinion, however, must give way before the evident identity of bishop and
priest in Acts 20:17 and 28, Titus, 1:5-7, Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth
Another view recognizing this
synonymous character estimates that these officers whom we shall call bishops —
priests had never the supreme direction of the churches in Apostolic times;
this power, it is maintained, was exercised by the Apostles, the Prophets who
travelled from one church to another, and by certain Apostolic delegates like
Timothy. These alone were the real predecessors of the bishops of the second
century; the bishop priests were the same as our modern priests.
Mgr. Batiffol (Rev. bibl. 1895, and
Etudes d'hist. et de théol. positive, 1, Paris, 1903) expresses the following
opinion: In the primitive churches there were (1) some preparatory functions,
as the dignity of Apostles and Prophets; (2) some presbyteroi had no
liturgical function, but only an honourable title; (3) the episkopo1:several
in each community, had a liturgical function with the office to preach; (4)
when the Apostles disappeared, the bishopric was divided: one of the bishops
became sovereign bishop, while the others were subordinated to him: these were
the later priests. This secondary priesthood is a diminished participation of
the one and sole primitive priesthood; there is, therefore, no strict
difference of order between the bishop and the priest.
Whatever may be the solution of this
difficut question, it remains certain that in the second century the general
Apostolic authority belonged, by a succession universally acknowledged as
legitimate, to the bishops of the Christian churches. The bishops have,
therefore, a general power of order, jurisdiction, and magisterium, but
not the personal prerogatives of the Apostles.
The Feasts of the Apostles.
The memorable words of Hebrews, 13:7:
“Remember your presidents who preached to you the word of God,” have always
echoed in the Christian heart. The primitive churches had a profound veneration
for their deceased Apostles (Clement of Rome, Ep. ad Corinth. v); its first
expression was doubtless the devotional reading of the Apostolic writings, the
following of their orders and counsels, and the imitation of their virtues. It
may, however, be reasonably supposed that some devotion began at the tombs of
the Apostles as early as the time of their death or martyrdom; the ancient
documents are silent on this matter. Feasts of the Apostles do not appear as
early as we might expect. Though the anniversaries of some martyrs were
celebrated even in the second century, as for instance the anniversary of the
martyrdom of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna (d. 154-156), the Apostles had at this
time no such commemoration; the day of their death was unknown. It is only from
the fourth century that we meet with feasts of the Apostles. In the Eastern
Church the feast of Saint James the Less and Saint John was celebrated on the 27th of December,
and on the next day the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (according to St.
Gregory of Nyssa and a Syriac menology). These commemorations were arbitrarily
fixed. In the Western Church the feast of Saint John alone remained on the same day as
in the Eastern Church. The commemoration of the martyrdom of Saint Peter and Saint Paul was celebrated
29 June; originally, however, it was the commemoration of the translation their
relics (Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 277). From the sixth century the feast
of Saint Andrew was celebrated on the 30th day of November. We know but little
of the feasts of the other Apostles and of the secondary feasts of the great
Apostles. In the Eastern Churches all these feasts were observed at the
beginning of the ninth century.
Orthodox Church Pakistan
www.ocpak.com
by: Fr. Cyril Amer
No comments:
Post a Comment