Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Apollos an apostle?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Frank Jacks" <cfjacks AT attbi.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Apollos an apostle?
  • Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:28:17 -0400

My apologies to all for my final sentence requires correction and
clarification ... I need to learn the discipline of proofing what I write!
The sentence should had read:

Still, thanks for these contributions (by all the
listers, in fact), which I have found
most helpful, if only in clarifying my own thoughts.
:-)

The typo ("in" rather than the intended "of") was most unfortunate, for it
might be read as somehow a "slam," whereas I am always truly grateful when I
encounter a comment which prods my own thinking, as was the case in the
contributions made by all the listers, whose comments I did (and do)
appreciate ... even when/if disagreeing in content.

So if all would emend my last sentence, I would be most grateful.

C. F. Jacks

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Jacks" <cfjacks AT attbi.com>
To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Apollos an apostle?


> Fred said,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Frich107 AT aol.com>
> To: <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Apollos an apostle?
>
>
> [snipped]
>
> >
> > I agree that in its most general sense both Apollos and Barnabas could
be
> > considered apostles.
> >
> > >At the same time, apostleship seems to be
> > >used of Paul in 1 Cor.9:1 in reference to someone who
> > >had "seen" Jesus.
> >
> > This idea is also found, I believe, in 1 Corinthians 15 in perhaps even
> more
> > explicit terms, though there may be other ways of reading this.
> >
> > >I think there is a subtle distinction
> > >made between "Apostle" (those who saw Jesus, Paul is a
> > >late comer in this regard), and "apostle" (one who is
> > >sent to proclaim the gospel). Of course, there were no
> > >lower case letters in the earliest textual MSS, but I
> > >think context bears out these distincions.
> >
> > I agree completely that there is a distinction between the two groups of
> > apostles that you identify. In Paul's writings I believe that they are
> > distinguished by the qualifying phrase 'of the church(es)'. Paul only
> speaks explicitly
> > of such people on two occasions (2 Corinthians 8:23 and Philippians
2:25),
> and
> > yet they are obviously very different from Paul and the Jerusalem
> apostles, or
> > the Twelve. Paul often refers to himself as an apostle 'of Christ
Jesus',
> > which again is a qualifier that I believe distinguishes him from the
> apostles of
> > the church. He is sent by Christ, whereas they are sent by local
ekklesia.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Fred Rich
> >
> > Ph.D. Student,
> > Department of Biblical Studies,
> > University of Sheffield,
> > Sheffield,
> > South Yorkshire,
> > UK.
>
>
> Fred,
>
> This is just a quick comment (of approval!) to emphasize and to under-line
> the distinction which you ened up with - one that I think is pertinent,
and
> crucially so. Truth to tell, I had been being tempted to jump into this
> conversation with what follows as a foot-note, so thanks for giving me
this
> opportunity.
>
> Since "apostle" simply means "one sent (by someone else to do something or
> other -whatever it is that the sender wants the sent to do for him/her,
> often in his/her place)" the crucial issue as to the meaning of the word
is
> NOT to be found in any lexical meaning of the word but rather the
> circumstances of the "sending." That is, the question is indeed "who is
> sending this person?" and then "for what reason or purpose?"
>
> Clearly [at least to me] Barnabas and Apollos (and Timothy and Titus) were
> "apostles," because Paul sent them in his place to do something that he
> would most likely have preferred to do "in person" but could not and so he
> "sent" them to do this task;
> simply said, they were indeed "Paul's apostles." But not (or at least not
> directly) "Jesus' apostles." So I most heartily endorse
> the distinction you end up making!
>
> Similarly, I think it appropriate to consider "those of/from James"
> (mentioned in Gal. 2) can (and perhaps even were at that time) be termed
> "James' apostles." So back to Apollos - if he were an "apostle" then
> "whose? (i.e. from whom?)" and "why?"
> Perhaps to "preach the gospel" ... or not.
>
> Thus, my final comment [which I discover just now relates to a sentence I
> snipped out ... my apologies] has to do with someone's assuming that an
> "apostle" was (always? ... usually? ... sometimes?) "sent to preach."
> Certainly, the Book of Acts
> shows us the Christian elders in the congregation at Antioch "sending out"
> Paul and Barnabas as their "field agent," to preach
> the gospel, a case in which a "sent apostle" WAS "sent to
> preach/evangelize." But it rather seems to me that in each case the
> task given to such a delegated representative should not be assumed but
> discovered. My prime example is of course the one I have already
mentioned
> above - namely, Paul's sending Timothy and Titus in his stead.
>
> Still, thanks for these contributions (by all, in fact), which I have
found
> most helpful, in only in clarifying my own thoughts. :-)
>
> Most sincerely,
>
> Frank
>
> Clive F. Jacks, Th.D.
> Professor of Religion, Emeritus
> Pikeville College,
> Pikeville, KY
> U.S.A.
>
> (but now still happily retired in the metro Atlanta area)





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page