[Index] [Previous] [Next]
2.1.5 - A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age
Primitive Jewish Christianity
The New Beginning - Significance of the Twelve
But not simply did the apostles hold no official position in the church of Jerusalem; there exists no proof that they held any official position in the church at large, or that hey were supposed in these early days to have been entrusted with any kind of authority over it.
They seem as missionaries, to have done the same work that was done by many of their brethren. Matthias was not the only one that could testify of the resurrection, and his appointment did not imply that the others, who were more than five hundred in number according to Paul, were relieved from the duty or deprived of the privilege of bearing their testimony.
The significance of the Twelve lay not in the peculiarity of the work that they did, nor in the authority with which they were entrusted [it cannot be shown even that they were in control of the missionary work of others], but in the fact that they had been chosen by Christ to be his constant companions, had enjoyed the privilege of intimate fellowship with him, had received his especial instruction, had been sent out even during his lifetime to do the work of missionaries, and had been individually and collectively commanded to carry on that work after his death. Thus they were felt to have been particularly honored by Jesus, and to have been charged by him with a heavier responsibility than the mass of the disciples. But this is far from involving the claim or the recognition of official position and authority.
It was, therefore, not a s a member of an official board of government or control that Matthias was chosen, but simply as one of the little band of missionaries, whose significance over and above other missionaries, whatever it may have been while there were among them only those directly called by Jesus himself, after the appointment of Matthias could hardly be more than symbolic or prophetic.
But the author of the Book of Acts had another conception of the significance of the Twelve Apostles. He apparently thought of them as constituting an apostolic college, which had in its hands from the beginning the government of the church and the members of church remained in Jerusalem, and at the head not simply of the congregation there but also of the church at large, for a number of years. [Acts 6: 1, 8:1,14, and 11:1]
But such a conception is out of accord with the facts as they appear even in the Book of Acts itself [though referring so frequently in a vague and general way to "The Apostles," the author makes it evident in many passages that it was some individual or individuals that were held in highest honor, and not the apostles as a body], and cannot be made to square with what we know of the church of Jerusalem from the epistles of Paul. The notion is evidently purely dogmatic, resting upon the author's assumption of what the apostles must have been to the church in its early days. [This idea was due in part to Paul himself, who in his controversy with the Judaizers enhanced, by his emphasis upon his equality with the Twelve, not only his own dignity and authority, but theirs as well.]
Already before the end of the first century, the idea was prevalent of an apostolic college to which was committed the control of the church by Christ. It was natural therefore for the author of the Book of Acts, in the absence of specific information upon the subject, to conceive of the position and work of the Twelve Apostles during the early years in Jerusalem in the way that he did.
Historically, the most important fact connected with the appointment of Matthias was the position of leadership assumed by Simon Peter. That a man who but a few weeks before had repeatedly and flagrantly denied his Master, should so soon recover the confidence of his associates, and even appear as their leader and spokesman, is, to say the least, surprising, and might well be doubted, were it not confirmed by the undisputed pre-eminence accorded him on many other occasions throughout these early days.
Nothing, in fact, is more certain than that he was for some years the leading figure in the church of Jerusalem. But his pre-eminence, following so close upon his cowardly denial, demands an explanation. It is not enough to point to the fact that even during Jesus' lifetime he was the leading spirit among the disciples, and was recognized as such by Christ himself, for whatever repute he enjoyed then must have been forfeited by his recent conduct.
We can explain the restored confidence of his brethren only on the supposition that he had had, since his denial, an opportunity to redeem his character and to vindicate conclusively his loyalty to the Master and his cause. What that opportunity was, we cannot certainly say, but we may find a suggestion of it in the fact that in speaking of the appearances of the risen Jesus, Paul mentions his appearance to Peter first of all.
It would seem from Paul's words that that manifestation was of especial significance, and it is possible that it was primarily to Peter that the church owed its belief in the resurrection of its crucified Master. It may have been he who was first convinced of the great fact, and when doubt as to the reality of the resurrection threatened to triumph, or when the disciples' despair had not yet been broken by any ray of hope, he may have come to the rescue with a sturdy declaration of faith such as was characteristic of him, and such as had won for him at an earlier time the blessing of Christ [Matt. 16:16].
If this supposition be correct, Peter became in a sense the second founder of the Christian church, and the prophecy of Christ, that upon him he would build his church [Matt. 16:18], found literal fulfillment; for without his faith, and his bold avowal of it at this critical time, the disciples would have gone back to their old life in despair, and the church would have had no existence.
Under his leadership, it would seem, with the confidence inspired, in the first instance, by his sturdy faith, and confirmed by their own vision of the risen Lord, the disciples returned to Jerusalem. Under his leadership they met together there, and it was he that proposed the appointment of Judas' successor.
Used by permission of the publisher.
[Index] [Previous] [Next]