Best Bible verses against Calvinism

Deut 30:19  “Choose life, so that you and your descendants may live!”

John 7:17 “If anyone is willing to do God’s will, he will fully recognize this teaching...”

 

1 Tim 2:4-5 “God wants all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth...” 

2 Tim. 2:21: “If anyone cleanses himself, he will become a special instrument...”

 

Luke 7:30 “The Pharisees and experts in the Law rejected God’s purpose for themselves”  

Luke 8:13: Some “believe for a while”

 

Rev. 22:17 “Let the one who wants it take the water of life free of charge.”

Historicism vs. Futurism (Daniel 9:24-27)

 by Anthony F. Buzzard

Does Daniel 9:24-27 lead us to expect at the end of the 70 “sevens”:

1. Jewish rejection of the Messiah in AD 32/33  (historicism)  OR
2. The restoration of all things at Christ’s coming (futurism)

Historicists are reading the 70 sevens prophecy of Daniel 9:26-27 as if it said: Jesus will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven’ (AD 27-34). About AD 30, in the middle of the ‘seven,’  he will be cut off and cause the sacrifices to cease, and 40 years after the end of the 70^th ‘seven’ in AD 34, Titus will destroy Jerusalem in AD 70 (and himself be destroyed as in a flood??).

Here are the reasons for futurism:

1. “If the cutting off of the Messiah occurred in the middle of the 70^th seven, it is very strange that the cutting off is said to be ‘after’  the 69 sevens (adding the 7 and the 62 sevens). Much more naturally the text would have read ‘during’ or ‘in the midst of’ the 70^th seven, as it does in v. 27 concerning the stoppage of the sacrifices. The only adequate explanation for this unusual turn of expression is that the 70^th week did not follow on the heels of the 69^th, but that an interval separates the two. The crucifixion then comes shortly ‘after’ the 69^th but not within the 70^th because of an intervening gap. The possibility of a gap between the 69^th and the 70^th weeks is established by the well-accepted OT phenomenon of prophetic perspective, in which gaps such as that between the first and second advents were not perceived” (Robert Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, p. 190).
2. “Christ did not make or confirm a covenant for one week. He established the new covenant forever” (Gundry, p. 190).
3. Historicism makes the 70 sevens expire in AD 32/33, 3 ½ years after Jesus’ death. Futurism makes the 70 sevens expire at the return of the Messiah.
4. Historicism makes the attack by the wicked prince (Dan. 9:26) the attack on Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70. But if AD 32 is the proper end of 70 sevens, this attack happened 40 years beyond the end of the 70 sevens. Futurism makes the attack of the wicked prince an event of the 70^th seven just before the Second Coming.
5. Daniel 9:26 says “to the end” there will be war. This will not fit a 70^th seven ending in AD 32/33 or AD 70.
6. The end of the 70^th seven is marked by the destruction of the desolator.  Daniel 9:26 says the evil prince will come to “his end” (CJB, NAB, NET). Titus did not come to his end in AD 70.
7. The 70 sevens are modeled on the 70 years prophecy of Daniel 9:2, which ends  in the restoration of Jerusalem. It is therefore incorrect to place the end of the 70 sevens prophecy in AD 32/33 or 70, which ended in destruction.
8. Each prophetic chapter in Daniel (7, 8, 9, 11-12) concentrates on the end of the age, making a leap from historical times to the distant (to Daniel) future. The 70 sevens prophecy is no exception.
9. The divided (3 ½ + 3 ½ years) final seven years is further developed in Revelation 11:2; 13:5; 12:6, 14. These verses link the prophecies of the divided 70^th seven with a period far beyond the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
10. Historicism severs the obvious link between Matthew 24:21 which quotes Daniel 12:1, the unique Great Tribulation.
11. Gabriel had promised that at the end of the 70 sevens Israel’s rebellion would be finished, her iniquity purged, and everlasting righteousness would be restored to the holy city. Yet AD 70 was the destruction of Jerusalem! Daniel was to be comforted by the hope that all the troubles for his people would cease at the end of the 70^th seven. And Paul says these things are still in the future for Israel (Rom. 11:25-27).
12. Early church fathers who wrote extensively on eschatology — Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Appolinarius of Laodicea —were futurists, placing the 70^th seven close to the second coming. (No church father however believed in a pre-tribulation rapture.)

Reasons for a future Abomination of Desolation

 by Anthony F. Buzzard

1. There will be “nation rising against nation” before the end (Matt. 24:7). This did not occur before AD 70.
2. The preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom precedes the end, and the end is then associated with the abomination: “and then the end will come. Therefore when you see the Abomination…” (Matt. 24:14-15).
3. The “immediately after” of Matt. 24:29 links the Abomination with the arrival of the Messiah. It is impossible to extend the Great Tribulation over 2000 years, or to extend the heavenly signs over that period. The Great Tribulation “immediately after” which Jesus returns is evidently a short period of awful trouble.
4. This time frame is more than confirmed by the passage in Daniel from which Jesus says he is quoting. In Matt. 24:15 he refers the reader to Daniel’s Abomination which is found in Daniel 11:31 (the exact phrase that Jesus used). Daniel’s Abomination is set up, however, 1290 days (3½ years) before the end: “From the time of the Abomination of Desolation is set up …there will be 1290 days” (Dan. 12:11). This reference in Daniel 12:11 points back to 11:31 which is part of the one vision described in chapters 11-12 (and introduced in chapter 10).
5. The fact that Jesus is looking at the first-century Temple and referring to the destruction of a Temple yet future is not a problem when note is taken of Hebrew “corporate” thinking. Any Temple on that site may be called “this Temple.”  Proof of this is found in Haggai 2:3, 7, 9. In these verses the Temple which is no longer there is called “this” house, and the Temple of the future is likewise “this” house. Jesus may therefore easily refer to the buildings in front of him and describe the destruction of a Temple on the same site not yet built.
6. The references to an interference with the Temple in Revelation 11:1-2 point to a future Temple. The disturbance, “trampling” is to last for the same 3 ½ year period  (42 months) described by Daniel 11:31; 12:7, 11.
7. Paul refers to Daniel 11:36 (and 8:11) in 1 Thessalonians 2:4, speaking of the Antichrist. This is an event just preceding the Parousia.
8. The King of the North of Daniel 11:31 following is not the Pope, but an individual Antichrist arising in Assyria or Babylon (Iraq, Iran, Syria).
9. Jesus places the time of unprecedented Tribulation just before his Second Coming (Matt. 24:21). This is a quotation of Daniel 12:1 which belongs to the time of the resurrection (12:2), and it also occurs within the time frame provided by Daniel 11:31; 12:7, 11, just after the final King of the North (“at that time,” Dan. 12:1).
10. “Finally, the view that the seventieth week will be fulfilled immediately before Jesus’ return was held by the early Church, which received its doctrine from the apostles themselves. See the eschatological sections in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Lactantius, and others” (Robert Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, p. 193).

Johannine Usage of Agency

From Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2 vols. introduction.

John portrays Jesus as God’s agent, his authorized, reliable representative. Although John’s Christology is incarnational, it is also a “sending” Christology,312 the latter theme reflecting the divine love that originates the sending.313 Like the prophets of old, Jesus was an agent not of humans but of God. In the case of the Johannine Jesus, images of God sending divine Wisdom forth from his holy heavens to instruct the wise314 (or, less closely, angels sent from God)315 are a still nearer part of the context. The Jesus tradition and early Christianity already included the portrait of Jesus as the Father’s agent (e.g., Mark 9:37; 12:6; Matt 10:40; 15:24; 21:37; Luke 4:18, 43; 10:16; Acts 3:26; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4),316 but John emphasizes this motif more fully.

Another important element in the significance of the sending motif is that messengers even in the OT were often servants.317 The servant of a king held a high position relative to those the servant addressed (albeit a sometimes uncomfortable one when the people were in rebellion, 2 Kgs 12:18), but was always subordinate to the king. Although commissioned agents in the first century were not always of lower social status (especially in betrothal arrangements), they relinquished their own status for the commission given them, in which they were authorized by the status of their senders. Equally, when one sent one’s son (Mark 12:6), the messenger position was necessarily one of subordination to the sender. Al- though the concept of agency implies subordination, it also stresses Jesus’ functional equality with the Father in terms of humanity’s required response: he must be honored and believed in the same way as must be the Father whose representative he is (e.g., John 5:23; 6:29).

Jesus is the Father’s appointed agent, but at his return to the Father he commissions the Paraclete and his followers to continue this mission.318 Jewish agents could sometimes appoint agents themselves, and some scholars suggest that this background is in view here.319 Because this practice was so rare, however, the allusion may not have been immediately obvious to the readers, who would have viewed the succession in terms closer at hand.320

A survey of the usage of the two Greek verbs by which John articulates agency indicates that John employs them interchangeably (as, e.g., in Wis 9:10), as is particularly obvious in 1:19, 22, and 24. Some writers make slight distinctions, claiming, for example, that "apostle" often has God as the sender whereas "sent" normally identifies the sender, but the distinction does not hold well.321 Both identification at times in immediate con- texts and uneven distribution by placement rather than category render distinctions be- tween the terms doubtful. Thus, for example, the last discourse employs only "sent," whereas the prayer of ch. 17 employs only "apostle." The "as" of 20:21, however, forces us to identify them. Their significance, therefore, lies in the nuances associated with the concept of sending in the culture, and their specific function in the Fourth Gospel. The commentary will address the latter further in relevant passages. The Fourth Gospel applies the terms "apostle" and "sent" in the following ways:

1. The Jewish custom or institution322

a. “The Jews” send priests and Levites

apostles: 1:19

sent: 1:22, 24 b. Pharisees send officers apostles: 7:32

c. Mary and Martha send messengers apostles: 11:3

2. God sent his Son

apostle: 3:17, 28[323], 34; 5:36, 38, 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36, 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21

sent: 4:34; 5:23, 24, 30, 37; 6:38, 39, 44; 7:16, 18, 28, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29; 9:4; 12:44, 45, 49; 13:16, 20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5

3. The Spirit is sent “in his name”

a. By the Father

sent: 14:26; 15:26

b. By Jesus

sent: 16:7

4. Disciples and others are sent

a. John the Baptist, by God an apostle: 1:6; 3:28

b. Disciples

apostles: 4:38; 6:57;324 9:7;325 17:18 sent: 13:16, 20; 20:21

In most cases these terms include the connotation of representation and delegated authority, that is, more than the usual nuance of the English term “sent” or even of the phrase “sent as a messenger.” Several texts clearly associate the sending of Jesus with that of the disciples (13:20; 17:18; 20:21), an association also extant in the Synoptic tradition (Matt 10:40; cf. Luke 10:16; Mark 10:37). This “sending” Christology emphasizes the subordinationist aspect (the Son subordinate to the Father) of John’s Christology.

Footnotes

312 Cf. Becker, “Auferstehung,” emphasizing the latter. Mercer, “Apostle,” correctly argues that John’s sending motif is incarnational, not docetic.

313 See Waldstein, “Sendung.”

314 Wis 9:10. Cf. the late parabolic comparison of Torah and prophets to a king’s agent in Song Rab. 1:2, §2; cf. also the heavenly agent (in Philo, esp. Israel) in Borgen, “Agent,” 144–47; cf. Borgen, “Hellenism,” 101–2. A “sending” Christology fits a sapiential emphasis well; see Manns, “Evangelio.”

315 E.g., Tob 12:20. Cf. Abel and Enoch in T. Ab. 11:2–10B; and the role accorded angels representing God in earlier tradition (e.g., Gen. 32:30; 33:10, if the angel was viewed as Esau’s guardian).

316 Thus Coppens, “Logia,” roots the motif in Christian tradition notably expressed in the Synoptics.

317 For an example of subordinate status, cf. P. Ryl. 233.14, 16 (2d cent. C.E.), where an agent addresses his master as "lord."

318 Cf. 1 Clem. 42.

319 Burge, Community, 201–2, following Borgen, “Agent,” 143.

320 See on the Paraclete and succession narratives in the commentary.

321 Mercer, “APOSTELLEIN.” Seynaeve, “Verbes,” may be right about general patterns, but admits that each is used elastically. Rengstorf, “apostle,” 404, acknowledges the general interchangeability but draws a distinction which in some cases we would regard as coincidental or probably habitual rather than semantically significant (26 of 33 "sent" passages refer to God as sending Jesus).

322 Probably although not certainly this involves the idea of the shaliach.

323 By implication.

324 By possible implication from the kajwq6 and the partial parallelism.

325 By implication for a prospective disciple from the term “Siloam.”

Meaning of Agency and Apostleship

From Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2 vols., introduction.

Agency represented commission and authorization, the sense of the concept which pro- vides a broad conceptual background for early Christian agency. The agent’s own legal status may have been low;288 under rabbinic rulings, even slaves were permitted to fill the position.289 Yet agents bore representative authority, because they acted on the authority of those who sent them. Thus perhaps the most common rabbinic maxim concerning a person’s agent is that “he is equivalent to the person himself.”290 Later rabbis, probably wishing to minimize the possibility of accidental bigamy, regarded a divorce performed on the testimony of an agent as valid even if the husband later denies its validity.291 In the broader Mediterranean world envoys or messengers were backed by the full authority of those they represented.292 They also bore diplomatic immunity, so mistreating them was an insult not only to those who sent them293 but also to the standards of Mediterranean justice,294 for their office had long been held sacred.295 The principle applied much more broadly, in fact, than to heralds; one could express one’s feelings toward a sender by so treating the sender’s representative. Thus Turnus thinks that King Evander deserves death, and accordingly kills his representative in battle (Virgil Aen. 10.492); by contrast, Achilles tells frightened heralds that he is angry with Agamemnon who sent them, not with them (Homer Il. 1.334–336).

Because the agent had to be trustworthy to carry out his mission, various teachers ruled on the character the pious should require of such agents;296 an agent who fails to carry out his commission is penalized.297 This also implies, of course, that a shaliach’s authority was entirely limited to the extent of his commission and the fidelity with which he carried it out.298 Granted, high-ranking ambassadors could act in the spirit of their senders, but even in such cases governing bodies could refuse or modify their agents’ terms.299 (In this Gospel Jesus appears as the Father’s perfect agent, in continual communion with him, rendering such modification unnecessary; cf. 5:19–20; 8:28–29.) In the broader Mediterranean world as well, messengers of all sorts were required to have exceptional memories so as to communicate accurately all they were sent to say,300 and any suspicion that they exaggerated a report could be held against them.301

The LXX regularly employs "apostle" and not "sent" with divine sending.302 For instance, God sent Joseph (unknown to Joseph; Gen 45:5, 7, 8) and Abigail (unknown to her; 1 Sam 25:32); the term often applies to one sending another on a mission.303 But God particularly sent Moses (Exod 3:10, 13–15; 4:28; 7:16; Deut 34:11; cf. Exod 4:13; 5:22) and the prophets, whether individually (2 Sam 12:1; 2 Chr 25:15; cf. 2 Sam 12:25) or collectively (2 Kgs 17:13; 2 Chr 24:19; Bar 1:21). Especially noteworthy here are 2 Chr 36:15 (God sent by his "angel," the noun cognate of "apostle" apparently being unavailable), and the language of Jeremiah (Jer 7:25; 24:4; 26:5; 28:9; 35:15; 44:4), where unsent prophets are evil (Jer 14:14–15; 23:21, 32; 27:15 [36:15–16 LXX]).

Some later Jewish teachers thus viewed as agents Moses,304 Aaron,305 the OT prophets306 or, most generally, anyone who carried out God’s will.307 Jewish teachers who saw the prophets as God’s commissioned messengers were consistent with the portrait of prophets in their Scriptures. Israel’s prophetic messenger formulas echo ancient Near Eastern royal messenger formulas such as, “Thus says the great king,” often addressing Israel’s vassal kings for the suzerain king Yahweh.308 Old Testament perspectives on prophets inform the early Christian view of apostleship,309 although they do not exhaust its meaning;310 early Christianity clearly maintained the continuance of the prophetic office, while seeming to apply to apostles the special sort of position accorded only to certain prophets in the OT (such as prophet-judges like Deborah and Samuel, and other leaders of prophetic schools like Elijah and Elisha).311

The first Christian “apostles” were probably distinguished from prophets because they were sent on missions while Jesus was with them in the flesh (Mark 6:7–13, 30). True apostles were apparently defined partly by their message of revelation. Most probably saw themselves as “sent” with a revelatory message to Israel like prophets of old, until Paul expanded the categories (like Jeremiah as a prophet to nations; Jer 1:5; Rom 11:13). Most significantly, early Christian apostles used Moses as a primary model (John 1:14; 2 Cor 3). Although the noun appears in John only at 13:16 (where it clearly functions as cognate in sense to the verb), at least some Johannine Christians used the term for the Twelve (Rev 21:14) and for Christian leaders until the end (Rev 18:20; false ones in Rev 2:2). If the prophetic use of the verb probably stands behind the general sense of the early Christian “apostle,” it is even more likely to stand behind the use of the verb in this Gospel.

Footnotes

288 B. Ketub. 99b–100a.

289 B. Git. 23a; cf. p. Git. 2:6, §1.

290 T. TaÁan. 3:2 (trans. Neusner, 2:274); also m. Ber. 5:5; b. Naz. 12b. For the sender’s responsibility, see m. MeÁil. 6:1; but reportedly pre-Christian tradition in b. Qidd. 43a holds the agent liable even if the sender is liable also.

291 P. Git. 1:1, §1. For discussion of how a sender could nullify an agent’s task, see p. Git. 4:1, §1; the stricter rule required speaking to the agent (see m. Git. 4:1).

292 E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 6.88.2; Diodorus Siculus 40.1.1; Josephus Life 65, 72–73, 196–198; 2 Macc 1:20. Cf. Zeno’s dispatch of two fellow scholars in his place in Diogenes Laertius 7.1.9.

293 Diodorus Siculus 4.10.3–4; Josephus Ant. 8.220–221.

294 Cf. Euripides Heracl. 272; Xenophon Anab. 5.7.18–19, 34; Apollodorus Epitome 3.28–29; Polybius 15.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 8.43.4; Diodorus Siculus 36.15.1–2; Dio Cassius 19.61; Appian R.H. 3.6.1–2; 3.7.2–3; 4.11; 8.8.53; Valerius Maximus 6.6.3–4. This was important, since receivers of news sometimes responded positively or negatively to messengers depending on the news they received (e.g., Homer Il. 17.694–696; 18.15–21; Euripides Medea 1125–1129; Appian R.H. 12.12.84; Arrian Ind. 34.4; 35.1; 2 Sam 1:15; 18:20, 22; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.35, 37).

295 Homer Il. 1.334; 7.274–282; 8.517; Aeschines Timarchus 21; Cicero Phil. 13.21.47; Herodian 6.4.6. Ambassadors who risked their lives merited special honor (Phil 2:25–30; Cicero Phil. 9.1.2).

296 M. Demai 4:5; t. Demai 2:20; cf. also Aeschines Timarchus 21.

297 B. B. Qam. 102ab.

298 Wenham, Bible, 114–15. In the broader Mediterranean culture, cf., e.g., Demosthenes On the Embassy 4–5.

299 E.g., Appian R.H. 9.9.3 (196 B.C.E.).

300 E.g., the ideal herald Aethalides in Apollonius of Rhodes 1.640–648.

301 Cf. Euripides Heracl. 292–293.

302 The sense of a cognate noun and verb need not agree, but given the noun’s absence in the LXX and the verb’s prominence there in a manner analogous to early Christian usage, it seems likely that the noun here reflects a Christian usage coined to match the cognate LXX verb (albeit in less technical use in secular vocabulary).

303 Joshua by Moses (Josh 14:7; cf. Josh 11:15); Barak by Deborah (Judg 4:6); Saul’s messengers (1 Sam 19:20); David (allegedly) by Saul (1 Sam 21:2); angels from God (e.g., Judg 13:8; Tob 12:14; cf. Gen 24:7); cf. messengers in 1 Kgs 18:10; 19:2; 2 Kgs 1:2, 6, 9, 11, 13; etc. A disciple may be “sent” as his master’s representative (the false but believable claim in 2 Kgs 5:22; cf. 2 Kgs 9:1–4).

304 Sipra Behuq. pq. 13.277.1.13–14; ÂAbot R. Nat. 1 A, most MSS; Exod. Rab. 6:3 (marriage negotiator); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 14:5; cf. Josephus Ant. 4.329. Samaritan literature sometimes portrayed Moses as God’s apostle (Memar Marqah 6.3, in Boring et al., Commentary, 263; Bowman, Documents, 241, 243; Meeks, Prophet-King, 226–27; idem, “Jew,” 173); Meeks regards this as significant for John (Prophet-King, 301–2); later Jewish texts may polemicize against Christian exploitation of such a position (cf. Barrett, John and Judaism, 49).

305 Sipra Sav M.D. 98.9.6.

306 Mek. Pisha 1.87 (Lauterbach 1:8), referring both to Jonah and to the wind God sent after him; ÂAbot R. Nat. 37, §95 B.

307 Sipra Sav M.D. 98.9.5. For a background for John’s sending motif in Isaiah’s servant, see esp. Griffiths, “Deutero-Isaiah,” 359.

308 Holladay, “Statecraft,” 31–34; cf. Judith 2:5; Rabe, “Prophecy,” 127. The form was probably used similarly in other ancient Near Eastern ecstatic prophetism (see Paul, “Prophets,” 1160; cf. Moran, “Prophecy,” 24–25).

309 See Grudem, Prophecy, 43–54; he probably goes too far, as Hill, Prophecy, 116–17, points out, although he does distinguish the two.

310 Hill, Prophecy, 116–17.

311 Schmithals, Apostle, 55–56, rejects the prophetic background for apostleship (preferring a gnostic background); by contrast, Betz, Jesus, 105, thinks apostleship is modeled “above all on the Old Testament prophet.” Meeks, Moral World, 107, 109, seems to equate Paul’s “false-apostle” opposition with wandering prophets; Aune, Prophecy, 206, mentions “itinerant Christian missionaries” (Did. 11.3–6); but Richardson, Theology, 320, rightly observes that Apollos, Timothy, and Titus did not explicitly receive the title, suggesting that the Didache usage is a post-NT development.

The Jewish Agent as New Testament Background?

From Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, "The Motif of Agency," 2 vols. introduction. 

In a detailed study of shaliach and its cognates, K. H. Rengstorf contended that the Christian “apostle” is a close adaptation of the Jewish institution of agency.272 Some of his OT data may reflect the custom. His use of rabbinic literature (especially dating it around the beginning of the Christian era) is questionable at points, but some of the evidence more strongly supports his position.

Although many scholars follow Rengstorf in defining the mission of Jesus or NT “apostles” in terms of the Jewish institution of the shaliach, or agent,273 many others reject this background.274 The objections are, however, questionable. As we have pointed out above, the relevant Jewish evidence is early enough that date is not a valid criterion for rejection. Some arguments, such as the lack of a Hebrew equivalent for the adjectival cognate,275 are completely irrelevant to the existence of the concept of a “sent” or commissioned messenger in both Jewish and Greek cultures. Nor does Schmithal’s objection that the shaliach’s authorization is juristic rather than “religious” carry much weight.276 A better objection is that "apostle" and "presbyter" are more common equivalents than "apostles" before 70 C.E.,277 but early Christianity hardly limited its choice among synonyms to standard translations of the day.

Rengstorf was hardly the first to recognize a connection between Christian apostles and the Jewish legal institution of agency; the latter as the former’s prototype was recognized at least as early as Jerome.279 The idea was also recognized by Lightfoot in the nineteenth century, in part through his vast knowledge of patristic sources.280 Lake recognized that "apostle" designated a mission in classical Greek, although "apostle" means “messenger” only rarely.281 The LXX uses apostello so frequently that it rarely employs pempo, but normally renders “envoy” as "angel," using "apostle" for this only once.282 The one use of the term by Josephus, however, for the leader of a Jewish delegation, is significant.283

The strongest argument in favor of drawing the connection between apostleship and agency is that Jewish (and more broadly Greco-Roman) agency supplies the most obvious general cultural context for the Christian conception of a commissioned messenger:

In every language there is a word to describe a person who is sent by the king or by the magistrates to act as their authorized representative....There is nothing unusual about it, and if Jesus sent out authorized representatives as Mark says that he did, this is the name which he would naturally have used. In the New Testament this is generally rendered into Greek by "apostles," but this word, though etymologically correct, is not customary in non-Christian Greek.284

Having argued that the shaliach provides a general context for the NT idea of agency (particularly apostleship), however, it is also important to recognize the quite different conception of agency in the NT. Conzelmann and Bultmann, for instance, observe that the shaliach is often a temporary position, whereas that of NT apostles is permanent.285 While this need not affect the derivation of the image, it does affect the sense. Others also insist that the different NT usage qualifies the meaning, and they are right.286 The synthesis noted by J. A. Kirk is helpful; the rabbinic institution provides an analogy to apostleship, but neither the word nor the function of an apostle of Christ can strictly be derived from.

As Rengstorf himself suggests, although the idea may have come from rabbinic Judaism its characteristic use in the New Testament has a peculiarly Christian origin and emphasis. Like many other words which occur in contemporary literature, its characteristic meaning in the New Testament is quite unique.287

The general institution of agency therefore informs the early Christian, including Johannine, conception of agency, but specific nuances of agency, which early Christian writers may have adopted and adapted, remain to be examined.

Footnotes

272 Rengstorf, Apostolate, 27. For one comparison of Johannine and rabbinic agency as well as questions of dating, see Friend, “Agency.”

273 E.g., Dix, Ministry, 228–30; Wanamaker, “Agent”; Witherington, Christology, 133–35; Meier, Matthew, 115; Grayston, Epistles, 125; Hunter, Romans, 24; Héring, 1 Corinthians, 1; Ladd, Theology, 381; Ellis, Paul, 30; De Ridder, Dispersion, 124–26; Bruce, History, 184.

274 E.g., Richardson, Theology, 324; Malan, “Apostolate,” 57 (contending, probably wrongly, that most now reject it; see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:153, who suggest that most rightly connect “apostle” with shaliach).

275 Ehrhardt, Ministry, 5.

276 Schmithals, Apostle, 106.

277 Wilson, Gentiles, 114.

279 Comm. in Ep. ad Gal. 1.1, cited by Dix, Ministry, 228.

280 Lightfoot, Galatians, 93–94, citing Epiphanius Haer. 30.

281 Lake, “Twelve,” 46, finding only Herodotus Hist. 1.21 (cf. 5.38) for the latter usage.

282 Lake, “Twelve,” 46, the one occasion being 3 Kgdms 14:6.

283 Lake, “Twelve,” 46, citing Josephus Ant. 17.299–303.

284 Lake, “Twelve,” 46. Anderson, Mark, 171, thinks it unlikely that Jesus regarded the Twelve as shaliachim, but reasonable that the Jerusalem church saw them in these terms.

285 Conzelmann, Theology, 45–46; Bultmann, Theology, 2:105 (Bultmann accepting the derivation from the shaliach).

286 E.g., Käsemann, Romans, 5–6.

287 Kirk, “Apostleship,” 252.

The Agent in Ancient Society

From Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, "The Motif of Agency," 2 vols. introduction. 

The concept of a commissioned messenger, authorized by his sender, was not restricted to Judaism.251 The earliest Greek literature reports various peoples honoring the immunity of heralds.252 In the Roman period, when Caesar sent (the word apostle and cognates) a governor or representative, that representative was both authorized to act on Caesar’s authority and responsible for carrying out his wishes.253 Philosophers could send disciples to teach in their stead and act as their representatives.254 Letters of recommendation often identified the sender with the one recommended.255

Greeks could likewise associate such sending with cultic or revelatory purposes. Temples could send representatives, for example, the envoys dispatched by the hierophant of Eleusis to seek contributions for the shrine.256 Hermes as messenger of the gods was sometimes “sent from heaven.”257 Epictetus advised that the genuine Cynic was a messenger sent from Zeus to people to show them their depravity;258 possessionless Cynics could happily announce, “Behold, I have been sent by God as an example to you.”259 An appeal to an apostolate in later Gnosticism for NT background is thus unnecessary and implausible.260

An equivalent custom existed in ancient Israelite circles as far back as Proverbs,261 and eventually became formalized under Jewish law. While we cannot determine the date at which some aspects of the custom of agency became law, the custom’s practice in other cultures suggests that the Jewish custom is older than the rabbinic sources which comment on it. Thus, for instance, both Roman and Jewish law recognized the function of proxies, or intermediary marriage-brokers, in betrothals.262 (This sort of custom occurs fairly commonly in societies where parents must negotiate the terms of marriage contracts.)263 While Jewish law did not require agents in betrothals,264 they were clearly common,265 and rules were created regulating their conduct.266 Agents were also used in divorce267 and business.268

Other evidence indicates that the practice was early. The language of agency appears in Qumran halakah.269 Eventually the Nasi sent “envoys” to the Diaspora, a practice attested in the church fathers and Roman law as well as rabbinic literature;270 but earlier texts attest the same practice of the high priest.271

Footnotes

251 Readers of Isa 52:7 LXX, which influenced early Christian usage of “good news,” may have envisioned the image of “herald” (though khr6 ux appears in the LXX only at Gen 41:43; 4 Macc 6:4; Sir 20:15; Dan 3:4). Heralds traveled in pairs (Homer Il. 1.320; even when others joined them, as in Homer Il. 9.168–170, the report might employ the dual: Homer Il. 9.182), as in Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1; Acts 13:2.

252 Cf., e.g., Iliad passim.

253 Cf. Josephus Ant. 18.1, regarding Quirinius; Ant. 18.265, regarding Petronius; for the Latin equivalent, see Pliny Ep. 10.18.190–191.

254 Zeno in Diogenes Laertius 7.1.9.

255 Malherbe, Aspects, 102–3. Moxnes, “Relations,” 260, thus associates Jesus’ sending of the Twelve with patrons delegating authority to clients to act on their behalf.

256 Mylonas, Eleusis, 244. They somewhat resemble some traveling holy men who sought to spread their cults abroad, although the establishment generally viewed these as charlatans (Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 42).

257 Cornutus 16.p. 20, 18–19 (in Van der Horst, “Cornutus,” 169).

258 Epictetus Diatr. 3.22.23.

259 Epictetus Diatr. 4.8.31, my translation. Adinolfi, “L’invio,” differentiates the sending of Jesus from that of Cynic philosophers in that God was present in Jesus.

260 Georgi, Opponents, 34; Malan, “Apostolate,” 57–58; against Schmithals, Apostle, 114–92.

261 E.g., Prov 10:26; 13:17; 22:21; 25:13; 26:6.

262 See Cohen, Law, 295–96 (citing Ulpian Digest 23.1.18); Friedländer, Life, 1:234.

263 See the traditional Chinese custom in Jochim, Religions, 164; the Shona custom in Gelfand, “Disorders,” 158; and the Wolof and Kiga custom in Mbiti, Religions, 179. 264 M. Qidd. 2:1.

265 E.g., b. Qidd. 43a; Exod. Rab. 6:3 (a parable attributed to R. Meir); 6:4. 266 T. Yebam. 4:4.

267 B. Git. 23a; Qidd. 43a.

268 Assumed in the parable in Gen. Rab. 8:3.

269 CD 11.2 forbids the use of a foreigner to accomplish one’s business on the Sabbath (cf. the later Jewish custom of the Sabbath goy); CD 11.18–21 forbids sending an offering to the altar by anyone unclean. “Send” had nontechnical uses as well; God would “send” deliverance by an angel in 1QM 17.6.

270 Safrai, “Relations,” 205, citing, e.g., Epiphanius Haer. 25.11; Eusebius On Isa. 18:1; Theodosian Code 16.8, 14. Cf. Nickle, Collection, 96; on the temple tax, see also Reicke, Era, 288.

271 2 Macc 1:18; Acts 9:2; 22:5; 28:21; cf. 1 Macc 15:17; Let. Aris. 32; Safrai, “Relations,” 204–7. The “apostles” of CIJ 1:438, §611 may simply be “messengers of the congregation” in question (439; see m. Ber. 5:5).