The twelve apostles: their post-Pentecost mission

This continues my series on apostleship.

The mission of the twelve apostles expands after Pentecost. While there is continuity with their pre-Easter role and mission, two factors mark a decisive new beginning: the resurrection, and the bestowal of the Spirit. Hence, the disciples are re-commissioned for world mission (Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:44-49; John 20:21; Acts 1:8) and re-empowered with a new dispensation of the Spirit (John 20:22; Acts 2:1-4; 4:8; 5:32). Their mission is just like Jesus’: as the Father sent (apostello) Christ, so Christ sends (pempo) them, and whoever receives them receives Christ, and in him, the Father (John 13:20; 17:18; 20:21 cf Matt. 10:40; Luke 9:48; 10:16).

The apostles therefore play a vital role in the book of Acts. The risen Christ met with and taught them (1:2). Matthias took Judas’ position (1:26). They preached fearlessly at Pentecost (2:37) and afterwards (4:33), even in the face of persecution (5:18, 29, 40; 8:1, 14). The early church was founded upon their teaching (2:42). They performed miracles (2:43; 5:12), and administered the welfare of the poor until handing it over to others (4:35-37; 5:2; 6:6). They investigated the expansion of the gospel to the Samaritans, and God demonstrated the unity of the church through giving the Spirit through their hands (8:14, 18). They played a key role in accepting Paul (9:27) and, along with the elders, accepting Gentile converts (11:1; 15:4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4). The apostolic-presbyterial decree concerning Gentiles indicates that its human authors, and the messengers entrusted to deliver it, regard the decree as being ultimately authored by God and therefore divinely binding upon believing communities: “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:28). All of this was under the direction and empowerment of the Spirit (eg: Acts 4:31; 15:28; 16:7).

Comments

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another. Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else. The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

Barfights in the public square

Everything in the public square seems to be increasingly conflicted. We seem to be operating with less and less shared values. It feels like we're less and less sure of what holds us together as a 'society.' A retreat into 'tribes' both drives this social fragmentation and is a result of it. Post-modern scepticism towards metanarratives, which has now become culturally normal, significantly contributes to this fragmentation. If we no longer believe that objective truth, independent of our individual or tribal perspectives, exists, we will no longer believe we can appeal to that objective reality as common ground for debate. All we will do is exert power to magnify ourselves and punish those who disagree with us. Because we believe that our cause is right, we will always think of ourselves as the victim of other people's aggression. Therefore, as Stephen McAlpine says, we will always think we're punching "up." We'll valorise ourselves as the ...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief: Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...

Multicultural Ministry Matters

Search This Blog