I do plan to comment in a post on the relationship that must exist within the Fivefold ministry of Ephesians 4.11-13.

I see the prophet as being different in function than the apostle, but I’ll wait to speak more about the relationship between them.

I certainly agree that missionaries are not apostles. There are a few who would fit that profile, but for the vast majority of M’s I know, we are talking about pastors, teachers, and evangelists.

I too have had a hard time identifying true Eph.4 prophets in our midst. There are plenty who call themselves prophets, but few of the “real thing.”

While in Antioch (back in Oct/09) I did meet several, of what I would call, genuinely gifted prophetic people. So I do know they exist, but just haven’t found them in our local context…yet!

I do believe that 1 Corinthians 15.7 says that Jesus appeared to all of the apostles and also to the Twelve as a group (see 1 Corinthians 15.5). So, the Twelve saw Jesus after the His resurrection in one or more appearances and then, in another appearance, all of the apostles saw Jesus after His resurrection. I believe this text makes it clear that there were more than just 12 apostles in the New Testament church. However, I do not believe that all the apostles were apostles in the same sense that the Twelve were apostles. I base this belief principally on the qualifications that were set forth for Judas’ replacement who was Matthias.

That leads us to the question of Paul. I believe Paul was an apostle equal to the Twelve. I think we can only say he is of a special category in that he did not meet the requirements set out in Acts 1.21-22 in the same way that the remaining 11 disciples and Matthias met them.

Paul invested a great quantity of ink in dealing with this very question. He was an apostle equal to the 12 even though he was “untimely born”.

Paul was unique among the apostles in that his “seeing” Jesus was a post-ascension occurrence and not simply a post-resurrection occurrence (1 Corinthians 9.1; 15.8).

Paul claimed to have received the gospel message not from the apostles in Jerusalem, but from Jesus Himself (Galatians 1.11-12). When this occurred we do not know. Scholars and theologians have many theories about when Paul was taught by Jesus, but we have no way of knowing. It is this fact, that he was taught by Jesus and not the 12 that Paul uses to argue that he is equal to the 12 and not dependent on them. In Galatians chapter 1 Paul is defending his apostleship to the Galatians. F.F. Bruce wrote this explanation of Paul’s visit with Peter and James, “Peter could impart to Paul much information of the kind he sought, more indeed than James could, but there was one thing, he insists, which neither Peter nor James did or could impart to him, and that was his apostolic commission, which he had already received direct from the risen Lord on the Damascus road.” (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 84)

Paul defends himself as an apostle equal to the 12 even though he did not meet the qualifications in a natural way. So, I tread lightly with saying that he was of a “special category” in order not to confuse the issue further. Paul was an oddity, but an equal to the Twelve (Matthias serving in the place Judas vacated) and that is the category in which I place him.

Again, thank you. Your questions are helping me to express more clearly what I am trying to convey.

Though I agree with the gist of your post, as I understand it, Matthias replaced Judas among the 12, and Paul is of a special category (not included in the 12). Also, not sure if I am following you correctly on this one, but 1 Cor. 15:7 seems to state that Jesus appeared to “all of the apostles,” not just to the 12 (or the 14). I will be interested to see your other posts, though, to see where you go with this.

Blessings,

David

Thanks for asking me for clarification on this. It is sometimes hard to speak categorically without people reading more than one wants to say in terms of categories. In an attempt to avoid that, I wrote less about categories.

The New Testament refers to the disciples of Jesus as “The Twelve” and uses the term apostle in reference to them. We also find Matthias replacing Judas as an apostle. And Paul is an apostle too. I believe that Matthias and Paul were apostles in the same way that the Twelve were apostles. So, I could have written the Fourteen, but that really wouldn’t have made sense either without further explanation. Nonetheless, I believe these fourteen apostles were in some way different than apostles as the term is used in Ephesians 4.11-13. To our knowledge, only these fourteen of the 22 men and woman described as apostles actually saw Jesus while he was on earth, which is one of the requirements that were given for the man who would replace Judas among the Twelve. So, I see the word apostle being used with one meaning for these fourteen men and with another meaning for the other 7 men and 1 woman. As we’ll see in the next post or two, I believe we find in the fourteen many similarities of function that we find in the other 8.

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say. Thanks for asking!

I’m curious why you include Paul among the 12. Wouldn’t that make 13?