Is the ‘apostolic church’ missional? Part four

In 1987 George G. Hunter III, Dean of the E. Stanley Jones School of Evangelism at Asbury Theological Seminary, introduced the theme of apostolic ministry for the post-Christendom context, and developed this theme in writings on the new apostolic age, advancing the apostolic movement, and the importance of evangelism in apostolic ministry. [1] He defined an apostolic church as a local body where leaders believe that they and the church are called and sent by God to reach an unchurched pre-Christian population. [2] By ‘new apostolic age’ Hunter meant there is renewed vision of apostolic ministry to unbelievers. This vision has everything to do with seeing the mission and mission field in the way that Jesus and the early apostles saw them.  Hunter does not wish to confuse this meaning with “apostolic succession,” and states:

… those who believe in ‘apostolic succession’ are likely to interpret this as ordination to mere chaplaincy services and teaching orthodox beliefs to the faithful.  Very few ordained clergy and other Christian leaders understand themselves, much less their congregations, as having inherited the work of the apostles [emphasis mine] to people who do not yet believe.[3]

For Hunter, apostolicity has as much to do with vision of ministry to and work among people who do not yet believe, as it does teaching right doctrine.  His definition of apostolic is tied to ‘apostle’ as one sent by the Holy Spirit to a new region or community in order to proclaim the gospel. An “apostolic leader (or leadership group)” he says, “reaches a remote tribe or an urban vocational group or some other distinct population—begins communicating the gospel, raises up some converts, forms them into a congregation, equips the congregation for its mission, grounds the people in the beliefs, lifestyle, and vision that inform and energize the mission, and eventually some of its members become apostles to other populations.”[4]  For Hunter, ‘apostolic’ describes functions of the first apostles in their evangelistic and missional work of establishing churches or extending the church.

 This use of ‘apostolic’ is not far from that of “lay apostolate” in Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council of 1964.[5]  The “lay apostolate” (which in some circles is oxymoronic) exists along with the “apostolate of the Hierarchy” in the Roman Catholic Church.[6] Lumen Gentium affirms:

The lay apostolate … is a participation in the salvific mission of the Church itself. Through their baptism and confirmation all are commissioned to that apostolate by the Lord Himself. Moreover, by the sacraments, especially holy Eucharist, that charity toward God and man which is the soul of the apostolate is communicated and nourished. … Thus every layman, in virtue of the very gifts bestowed upon him, is at the same time a witness and a living instrument of the mission of the Church itself “according to the measure of Christ's bestowal.”[7]

                The apostolate described here is clearly missional and extends to all the faithful through baptism and confirmation. Thus, every layman is herald of the gospel and functions in the “way certain men and women assisted Paul the Apostle in the Gospel.”  Lumen Gentium explains further:

Upon all the laity, therefore, rests the noble duty of working to extend the divine plan of salvation to all men of each epoch and in every land. Consequently, may every opportunity be given them so that, according to their abilities and the needs of the times, they may zealously participate in the saving work of the Church.[8]

                Such a statement is an example of why Vatican II has been described as the “Protestantization” of the Roman Church. Nevertheless, the point is that Lumen Gentium understands ‘lay apostolate’ in terms of mission, and it extends from Jesus and the Twelve to the laity who served alongside them.

Historically, the Protestant counterpart advocated by Martin Luther spoke of “a general priesthood” that dismissed the view that Christians were to be divided into two classes, the spiritual (sacred) and temporal (secular). He stated:

As for the unction by a pope or a bishop, tonsure, ordination, consecration, and clothes differing from those of laymen – all this may make a hypocrite or an anointed puppet, but never a Christian or a spiritual man. Thus we are all consecrated as priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: ‘Ye are a royal priesthood, a holy nation’ (1 Peter 2: 9); and in the book of Revelation: ‘and hast made us unto our God (by Thy blood) kings and priests’ (Rev. 5:10).”[9] 

Luther held that all baptized Christians are “priests” and “spiritual” in God’s sight. Thus, as Timothy J. Wengert asserts: “In tearing down this wall, Luther did not eliminate priests or do away with the priesthood. Instead he eliminated the laity!”[10]

                Thus, apostolicity of the church refers not merely to its foundation in Jesus Christ and the Twelve to whom he gave authority over the church and through whom the gospel was to be transmitted (Matt. 28:18-20), but apostolicity refers also to the character of the apostolic origin and nature of the church as embodying the apostolic witness and testimony through its life and mission.[11] 

                The Protestant traditions have tended to identify apostolicity almost exclusively with fidelity to apostolic teaching while the Roman Catholic tradition has identified it with apostolic succession in ministry.[12]  Yet all agree that the church must be apostolic in faith and mission. In the Lima Report from the Faith and Order Commission prepared by representatives from many Christian traditions including Roman Catholic, section IV, 37 states:

In the churches which practice the succession through the episcopate, it is increasingly recognized that a continuity in apostolic faith, worship and mission has been preserved in churches which have not [emphasis mine] retained the form of historic succession.  This recognition finds additional support in the fact that the reality and function of the episcopal ministry have been preserved in many of these churches, with or without the title “bishop.”[13]

                This brings up the question of marks of apostolicity.  While one of the “four marks of the church” is apostolic (“one, holy, catholic, and apostolic”), what are the marks of apostolicity?  Origin and foundation upon Jesus and the Twelve? Orthodox (ορθοδοξα) teaching and worship in accordance with the NT—the teaching of the apostles?  Authority based upon ordination through the laying on of hands? Character and pattern of the apostles’ mission?  Evidence of the Holy Spirit as seen among the Twelve?

---

[1] Gary L. McIntosh, “Reaching Secular Peoples: A Review of the Books of George G. Hunter, III,” The Asbury Journal 66: 2 (2011): 108-119.

[2] George G. Hunter III, How to Reach Secular People (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992), 108.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 110.

[5] The Latin Lumen Gentium means “light of the nations.”

[6] Lumen Gentium, III: 27. See Richard Gaillardetz, The Church in the Making: Lumen Gentium, Christus Dominus, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Paulist Press, 2006).

[7] Ibid., IV, 33.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, 1520, in J. H. Robinson, ed., Readings in European History (Boston: Ginn, 1909), Third Wall; Cf. De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praeludium, Weimar Ausgabe 6, 564.6–14 in Norman Nagel, “Luther and the Priesthood of All Believers,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 61 (October 1997) 4: 283-84.

[10] Timothy J. Wengert, Harvesting Martin Luther's Reflections on Theology, Ethics, and the Church, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 127.

[11] Torrance, 287.

[12] Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press, 2001), 7.

[13] Lima Report, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, IV: 37, in Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 8.

Is the ‘apostolic church’ missional? (part 3)

The Twelve Apostles

When asking if the expression ‘apostolic church’ refers to the church’s missional nature, one must understand the expression in its historical context.  Clearly the use of ‘apostolic church’ (ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν) in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 referred to the church that continued from Jesus and the Twelve to that day. In early Christianity, the Twelve were the first bearers of the message and teachings of Jesus and they in turn sent other messengers with this message.  The pattern is heard in Paul’s statement to Timothy: “You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also,” (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

The “one holy catholic and apostolic church” in the fourth century referred to the authentic and authoritative church that continued from Jesus and the apostles, and faithfully transmitted their teaching—the teaching of the apostles that was later canonized in the NT writings. With the rise of Gnostic texts by the second century that claimed apostolic authorship, and by the fourth century as heretical doctrines of Arius were spreading, it became necessary to draw up lists of bishops that could be traced back to the Twelve.[1]  As J. N. D. Kelly says, when Christians inserted the title ‘apostolic church’ into the Nicene Creed, they wanted to affirm the historic and verifiable continuity of the faith of the church.[2]  The emphasis was on the teaching derived from the apostles and the inherent authority therein.

                Although ‘apostolic’ did not refer at the time explicitly to missionality it did so implicitly by the church’s connection to Jesus and the apostles.   J. F. Torrance states:

The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is the Church continuously occupied with the interpretation, exposition and application of the Holy Scripture, for it is in that way that the Church opens its mind and life to the direction and correction of the Word of God. And that was precisely what the Church was doing, not least in the theologically turbulent years between the Nicene [AD 325] and the Constantinopolitan Councils [AD 381]. I refer to the constant exegetical activity undertaken by the Church fathers in their attempt to bring to consistent expression the internal connections of the Gospel and thus, not only to clarify and defend the apostolic and catholic faith in the face of heretical disruption, but to provide the Church with a structural framework within which its members could meditate upon the Holy Scriptures, worship the Holy Trinity, proclaim the Gospel of forgiveness, reconciliation and sanctification, and so fulfill its mission in obedience to the command of Christ.[3]

  

Tertullian

              Certainly the authority of the apostolic church was derived from the teaching of the apostles.  By the third century, Tertullian of Carthage linked “apostolic churches” to Jesus’ mission of sending the Eleven into the world (Matt. 28:18-20).[4]  Tertullian stated that Jesus commanded them to “go and teach all nations,” and so “did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as ‘the sent.’”[5] Tertullian held that having “received the promised power of the Holy Spirit and after bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judea and the surrounding churches,” the Twelve “next went out into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations.”[6]  In this manner, they “founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith and the seeds of doctrine.” Tertuallian then states:

Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but one primitive church, founded by the apostles, from which they all spring. In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic while they are all proved to be one, in unbroken unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood and bond of hospitality…[7]

                From this statement, Tertullian goes on to qualify what constitutes apostolic churches.  They are founded on the facts that Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach and what they preached was the gospel.  This gospel message was received by the apostolic churches from their preaching (vive voce, living voice) and subsequently by their epistles.[8] Tertullian claimed:

If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree made known that all doctrine agrees with the apostolic churches—those original formations and sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the very churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false that tastes like anything contrary to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God.[9]

                With this foundation Tertullian and others were able to judge any teaching as orthodox or heretical by comparing it to the teaching of the apostles.  If it was different—heterodox – then its author was “neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things that were self-contradictory.”[10]

Interestingly Tertullian went on to state: “…those churches who although they do not derive their founder from apostles or apostolic men as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily, yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are considered no less apostolic because they are agreed in doctrine.”[11] In other words, Tertullian affirmed that any church which arises without a direct tie to an eminent bishop or one of the Twelve was no less apostolic if it held to the same teaching as the apostolic churches.  For Tertullian, apostolicity was orthodoxy.  However, orthodoxy originated in Jesus who commissioned the apostles as “the sent” in order to “go and teach all nations.”

                This raises questions about authority, orthodoxy, and missionality.  As Tertullian claimed authority is derived from apostolic teaching.[12]  Thus, someone in a line of ordained bishops could be disqualified from ecclesial authority when deviating from apostolic teaching. Such heresy would cancel his authority among the apostolic churches.  This would apply equally to those who were missional but not orthodox.

A case in point is Ulfilas, the fourth century missionary who evangelized the Goths and translated the Bible into a Germanic language.  Ulfilas was consecrated bishop of the Gothic Christians by Eusebius of Nicomedia, bishop of Constantinople and follower of Arius who taught the heretical doctrine that Jesus the Son was neither equal with God the Father nor eternal. [13]  Uflilas held to this Arian teaching as well.  Clearly he was missional.  He proclaimed the gospel in word and deed. His missional activity led him, as some historians report, to aid 375 persecuted Christian Goths to cross the Danube into Roman territory.  Even though he labored to create the Gothic church among Visigoths and other Germanic peoples, because of his Arian heresy, he was not apostolic in his doctrine.

 Thus, apostolicity requires not merely missionality but orthodoxy.  Both are necessary.  Missionality must be orthodox in its formulations and orthodoxy must lead to orthopraxy—going, loving one’s neighbor, and making disciples, in the way of Jesus and the apostles.  In the final analysis, apostolicity refers foremost to the church’s grounding in the Scriptures, especially in the teaching of the apostles—the NT—but nevertheless, “… a community of the word is a community engaged in the movement that engaged the apostles.” [14] The church exists “by the ongoing work and word of the apostles.”[15]  For Christians, this means taking part in the movement that engaged Jesus and the Twelve.  In summary, J. F. Torrance states:

In its simplest sense the apostolicity of the Church refers back to the original foundation of the Church once for all laid by Christ upon the apostles, (Matt. 7:5; 1 Cor. 3:10ff; Eph. 2:20f; cf. Matt. 16:13-23; 1 Pet. 2:4-9) but it also refers to the interpretation of the existence and mission of the Church in its unswerving fidelity to that apostolic foundation. As the incarnate Son of the Father, Jesus regarded himself as having been anointed by the Spirit and clothed with his power for the fulfillment of his unique evangelical mission. (Luke 4:18f.).  With its completion in the cross and resurrection, he commissioned his disciples as apostles to act in his name, thereby linking their subordinate mission with his own supreme mission: ‘As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ At the same time he breathed his Spirit upon them, thereby constituting their sending by him as the empirical counterpart to the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Father in the name of the Son, which took place as Jesus had promised on the day of Pentecost (John 17:18; 20:21; cf. 14:25f; 16:12; Lk. 24:49; Acts 2:2-8). Jesus was the

Apostle in the absolute sense. (Heb. 3:1).  The apostles, however, were sent out by him as his chosen witnesses whose word he promised to empower as his own, and thus to unfold in them his own self-revelation. That was the peculiar function of the apostles, to be the link between Christ and the Church, the hinge on which the incarnational revelation objectively given in Christ was grounded and realized within the continuing membership of the Church.  The apostolate was designed and formed by Christ to be the nucleus of the Church corporate with himself which his own self-witness was integrated with inspired witness to him and translated into the appropriate form ( i. e. the New Testament Scriptures) for its communication in history. [16]

The message and mission of Jesus Christ is entrusted to his disciples who are called to be faithful witnesses, from the original Twelve to those who will take their place in the mission of announcing the kingdom of God and holding fast to the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

---

[1] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, trans. Sister Mary Frances McCarthy (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987), in Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 468;  Angelo Di Bernardino, Ancient Christian Doctrine 5: We Believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2010), 56. Francis A. Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church”, 155.

[2] J. N. D. Kelly, “Catholiqué et ‘Apostliqué aux premiers siècles,” Istine (1969): 33-45, in Bernardino, 56.

[3] Thomas F. Torrance, Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Faith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 288.

[4] Prescriptions Against Heretics 20. (ANF 3:252) in Bernardino, 82.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 83.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Hendrikus Berkof, Christian Faith, trans. Sierd Woudstra (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 409, in Grenz, 468-470.

[13] Everett Ferguson, ed. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Vol. 1 (New York: Routledge Press, 1990), 1149.

[14] John G. Flett, The Witness of God: The Trinity, Missio Dei, Karl Barth, and the Nature of Christian Community (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 263.

[15] Ibid., 264.

[16] Torrance, 285-286.

Is the ‘apostolic church’ missional? (part 2)

A discussion of the apostolic church as missional must not overlook the fact that Jesus Christ is too called an apostle. The single verse in the New Testament where apostolos (ἀπόστολος) is used of him is Hebrews 3:1, which says: “consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession.”[1]  In this statement, the author of Hebrews ties apostolicity to the mission of the Triune God (missio Trinitatis).   Jesus is the one whom the Father has sent, a theme repeated throughout the Gospel of John.[2]  In Hebrews 3:1, the basic idea of Jesus as “the apostle” is about mission. [3] He was sent by the Father with authority to accomplish a mission that was sacrificial in nature, as 1 John 4:10 states: “[God] loved us and sent (aposteilen) his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”[4] Thus, the mission of the Triune God led to Jesus’ apostleship.  Indeed, his apostleship is the basis of all apostleship.  He is “the first apostle, the great apostle, and the source of all apostleship.” [5]  His apostolicity is prior to and the ground of all apostles.

After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, the Eleven sensed the need to replace Judas, and so they sought someone who had been with Jesus and was an eyewitness of the risen Lord. The selection of this twelfth apostle was taken up in order to preserve the mission and authority entrusted to the Twelve. As such, they represented the church as the people of God on the pattern of the twelve tribes of Israel. Luke records in the Acts of the Apostles:

And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias.  And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry (diakonias) and apostleship (apostolēs), from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:23-26)

With Matthias, the Twelve went on to fulfill their purpose as apostles of Jesus.  Theirs was a unique and historic role in the establishment of the church—“the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” (Gal. 2:19-20).

Although the Twelve were a distinct group, the New Testament describes other apostles.[6]  Paul and James, the half-brother of Jesus, are two examples.  Paul asks about himself: “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord,” (1 Cor. 9:1-2). As for James, the half-brother of Jesus, Paul said: “But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother,” (Gal. 1:19).  Clearly, as with Paul and, probably as with James, the apostolate referred to a group larger than the Twelve.

This idea of an apostolate larger than the Twelve, however, has caused some to question the selection of Matthias, thinking that it was a mistake by the Eleven since Paul was clearly identified as an apostle who would have completed the Twelve. In my Formation Group with students at TEDS, I came across this view in J. I. Packer’s Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs that states:

Acts 1:15-26 shows us the church before Pentecost prayerfully asking Christ through the casting of a lot to choose a successor to Judas. Whether they were right to do this, and Paul was Christ’s thirteenth apostle, or whether Paul was Christ’s intended replacement for Judas and the choice of Matthias was a mistake, is not clear in Acts; Luke himself may not have known.”[7]

Of course, Packer does not mention James, the half-brother of Jesus, even though Paul wrote: “I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.”[8]  Yet, Paul and James each rose to prominence in their respective spheres of leadership among the Twelve.  Paul was named the “apostle to the Gentiles” and announced himself as an apostle in most of his epistles (Rom 1:1; 11:13). James, the brother of Jesus, became the leader of the church in Jerusalem and was a principal author of the apostolic decree of Acts 15. Moreover, both leaders are mentioned as eyewitnesses of the risen Lord:

[Jesus] appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.[9] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me [Paul]. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Cor. 15:7-9)

Let us consider Barnabas also. While Luke usually limits his use of apostolos to the Twelve, he does refer to “the apostles Barnabas and Paul” (Acts 14:14).[10] Barnabas co-labored with Paul and was commissioned with him by the Holy Spirit to go to Seleucia and Cyprus (Acts 13:2-4). Paul asked: “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles (οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι) and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?” (1 Cor. 9:5-6) Like Paul, Barnabas worked to fulfill the apostolic ministries of proclaiming the gospel and establishing churches. Let us further consider Apollos, Silas, and Timothy. Paul referred to himself and Apollos as apostles (2 Cor. 4:6-9), and to himself, Silas and Timothy as apostles (1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6).[11]

So what does it mean that Jesus is the source of all apostleship? It means that his apostleship as the first apostle sent by the Father for redemptive mission is prior to and the ground all apostleship.

Triune God

↓

Jesus, The First Apostle

↓

The Twelve Apostles of Jesus

Peter, James and John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas,

 James of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon, Judas Iscariot, and later Matthias

↓

Other Apostles

Paul, James the brother of Jesus, Barnabas, Apollos, Titus, Timothy

↓

 

While the size of the apostolic circle cannot be determined exactly, the Twelve and all other apostles received their apostleship by virtue of their union with Jesus Christ, the first apostle.  Indeed his apostleship is the basis of all apostleship and the basis of the church apostolic.

What does it mean that the church is apostolic?  It means that it is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” (Gal. 2:20). It means that the church is sent on mission to continue the missio Trinitatis, doing so through the witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ in word and demonstrated in deed. It means the church is entrusted to guard the deposit of faith—the apostles' teaching recorded in the New Testament—in order to dispense it faithfully to others.

If the church is not missional, is it apostolic?  Continued.

---

[1] Hebrews 3:1, κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν,

[2] John 3:17; 34, 5:36; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, et. al.

[3] Frank Gaebelein, ed., The Expositors Bible Commentary Vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981): 31.

[4] Cf. Mark 10:45.

[5] Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977): 127.

[6] For the Twelve, see: John 6:70 and Rev. 21:14. The New Testament describes other apostles—apostles of the churches as well.  Paul states : “And as for our brothers, they are messengers (apostles, ἀπόστολοι) of the churches, the glory of Christ.” 2 Cor. 8:23  While some understand “apostles of the churches” as another category of apostles, it more like means messengers or envoys.

[7] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Carol Stream, Ill: Tyndale House, 1993): 197.

[8] Some doubt whether James, the Lord’s brother, was an apostle, as the ei mē (except, only) of Gal. 1:19 is ambiguous. Colin Brown, New Testament Theology Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publ., 1986): 130.

[9] 1 Cor. 15:7, ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ, εἶτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν.

[10] See also Acts 13:50–14:4.

[11] 1 Thess. 2:6b  δυναμενοι εν βαρει ειναι ως χριστου αποστολοι