Ethiocross Blog

good job GOD BLESS YOU

May God Bless you abundantly, Brother Tekalign. It was a very informative and educational piece. I look forward to reading from you on other sensitive issues within the modern day Church.

In regards to the "be'aale Simet" I haven't read any arguments from the pro side anywhere except some irresponsibly personalized comments under Brother Paulos' article that was posted here a few weeks back.

I challenge all the Pastors of the WEST that flew across the Atlantic ocean to the "Beaale Simet" and all of the other Pastors at home who attended and applauded the celebration to come out and say something. Either defend what you did or come out and repent!! I hope you are Christian enough to take responsibility of your actions.

God Bless,
GWD

Dear Brother Tekalign,

Thank you for your article regarding the office of the Apostleship and the so called "beale Simet" at Yewongel Birhan church. Specially what YeWongel Berhan church has done was not biblical by any theological standard. You can not appoint someone an apostle after he served so many years as pastor, evangelist or any ministry for that matter. It is rather a gift to the church from our Lord Jesus Christ, not a recognition by a group of selected people (Eph 4:7-14). And I wholeheartedly believe that it is difficult to find a true apostle of Christ who labor day and night to advance the Kingdom of God. Truly speaking, now a days every body is wrapped up with his own denominational beliefs and doctrines. The question we need to ask is "is there anyone who works across ecumenical and denominational lines in order to preach, plant a church and maintain and supervise a healthy doctrine?"

Having said that I would like to discuss what I believe is the main issue for all of us. In your argument you said that the gifts are given (apostles,prophets, pastors, teachers ...)for a specific goal. And that goal is, we know, till we attain maturity. The Word reads: "until we all attain to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature person, to the measure of Christ's full stature.' (Eph. 4:13). Do you think we have reached to that maturity? If so and we may equally argue that the offices of prophet, pastor, teacher, evangelist etc. have ceased. But, we know it is not true because we need them for the church.

Ephesians chapter four talks about those gifts, and the purpose and goal of the gifts. However, one can ask when will we attain to such maturity (i.e., to the measure of the fullness of Christ). If we look at the Greek word "mekri" which means "until", it can get some help for our interpretation. "mekri" appears in the New Testament as a temporal adverb or improper preposition with genitive meaning "up to the point of" used with an aorist subjunctive it means "until", of a conceived future event preceded in time by the action of the main clause. This conjunction could depend on the immediate precedent prepositional phrase "for the building up of the body Christ". Thus, it denotes time. And that ministry of building up of the church continues until the second coming of Christ. If our interpretation is correct then all the offices do function and will continue to function.

As for Apostleship, I beleve there are three kinds mentioned in the New Testament: (1)those who had been with Jesus in His ministry and had witnessed His resurrection (Acts 1:21-22); (2) Paul, who was born out of season (1Cor. 15:8-9); (3)and those who received the gift of apostleship like Barnabas (Acts 14:4-14; 1Cor 9:5-7), James (1Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19), Apollos (1Cor 4:6-9), Titus (2Cor 8:23), Epaphroditus (Phil2:25), and possibly Andronicus and Junias (Rom 16:7). The first two categories are believed to be regarded as offices, whereas the last is a spiritual gift to the church.

In His Love

I would like to read this article, but the font color is a little bit unclear Can you change it if you don't mind please
10Q
heaps of bless

Greetings from Swiss!
I do not understand why we are fighting and trying to put some body under some thing.
Good to discern the sprit behind all looks good writing.
May the Lord give us more understanding and love to stand together for the good work.

Muluwork.

My dear brother Tekalign, you kept your promise that you would give an extetensive response to Paul's question. You did it so well that we can add nothing more.

My dear brother Iyosias, what a great concise summary as a response to the same question! I believe you both have had either systematic or biblical theological training. I commend you both for your standing for the truth. One thing I noticed in "post-Pentecostal Ethiopia" is the difference between the call to ministry and the zeal to serve the Lord. Certainly, every Christian is commanded to share the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ and contribute to the propagation of it in one way or another. This is our right and responsibilty as a disciple of Christ. Beyond this, there is something called the "call" to the ministry which demands one's full consecration. The church needs to discern and distinguish the two. Many elect to serve the Lord out of their love or situational need. God used them to a great deal among the Diaspora. They might have found it easier to continue their service as a minister rather than pursuing another career. Many did not make to formal schooling in a Bible college or seminary. They discouraged biblical training as something that would disway the believer from his Pentecostal experience. They dispised learning the word of God saying only the Holy Spirit would teach them. We, the older generation are guilty of that notion. We passed it on because we did not know any better at the time. May the Lord forgive our ignorance! I do not take that lightly. Amen!

These leaders could not stand theology because they said theologians were "dry" whereas, the uneducated ones were "wet" in their preaching. The Christian public bought into that distinction and disregarded the "educated" dry ones. The stigma is still here to stay. Ministry became an easy cope out rather than a "divine call" among the Diaspora. The educated ones gave in to the public disgrace of attending their schooling just to gain easy access to and popularity among the fellowships. Teaching or preaching now became 'yeEnjera gudaye' rather than 'yeHiwet gudaye'. Fierce competition among popular preachers drew many unquestioning believers. Churhes mushroomed without in major cities populated by Ethiopians. Conferences crowded like bazaars. Watered down gospel and compromised life-style were not only tolerated but also condoned. All kinds of sin took toll in the house of the Lord. Many serious Christian either quietly exiled to other local churches or looked the other way mainatining their membership. New comers from Ethiopia or elsewher were highly scrutinized to be labeled tolerants or radicals. Many former servants of Christ at home are systematically put aside if they spoke against sin or the status quo. That is what Dr. Dereje Kebede was trying to disclose in his most recent song. He is not singing for enjera gudaye but as genuine servant preaching against the popular sin in the house.

Now, there is no quick fix to this problem of popularity context of vying apostleship or bishopery. The damage is done. We also have to see many other doctrines in light of the word of God. It is all the old human nature, sigawinet. Let us keep Christianity simple as Christ is Christianity, none less or more. If it is not Christ and His rugged Cross, chances are, it is something else. We should be on guard against the enemy of the gospel, Satan that tries to pause or paralise our cause. Leaders need to look into this things with great care and compassion. It is not about knowing it all but what would you do with what you know? We say the right things but are our hearts are before God? Like Christ we have to love the sinner or offender but hate the the sin or offense that haunt us. We tell the truth because we love them and all, not for personal fame or gain. We love Christ and His Church.

To God be the glory.


At the foot of the Christ,

SFW.

Thank you Iyosias for you wonderful critics
If I correctly understood your argument it is like this, “ the meaning of the word “mechri” which is found in Eph 4:13 and translated us until or till in English Bible clear proof for the existence of Apostle today. Because, (let me put it the meaning of the word in your word) ‘ the Greek word “mekri” which means “until”, it can get some help for our interpretation. “mekri” appears in the New Testament as a temporal adverb or improper preposition with genitive meaning “up to the point of” used with aorist subjunctive it means “until”, of conceived future event preceded in time by the action of the main clause.’ [Therefore,’ the main clause of this passage is “gave” those gifts and these gifts exist] “until the second coming of Christ”.
But I say this argument is fallacies because it base on wrong Lexical meaning of the word “mechri”. I tried to look trough five Greek Bible dictionaries and I could not find one which supports your definition of the word, rather it supports my argument in the article. Specially two lexicons (ANALYTICAL LEXICON OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT and SHORTER LEXICON OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT F. Wilbur Gingrich SECOND EDITION Revised by Frederick W. Danker THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO AND LONDON) explicitly contrary to your argument and the rest also does not support you. These are the dictionaries which I refer. Look through them carefully and you yourself see that why I did not accept your argument of the present existence of Apostle which is based on the word “mechri”.
1. UBS lexicon
2. NEW EXHAUSTIVE STRONG'S NUMBERS AND CONCORDANCE WITH EXPANDED GREEK-HEBREW DICTIONARY
3. ANALYTICAL LEXICON OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT)
4. LEXICON OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT F. Wilbur Gingrich SECOND EDITION Revised by Frederick W. Danker THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS CHICAGO AND LONDON
5. BDAG, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (The University of Chicago: USA) 2000
God bless you
Keep it up

Hi Wastena
This is not my Blog site and I could not chnage the font. But if you want you can see on my blog
http://tekalign.wordpress.com/
with Blessing

Blessing to all,

I am happy for this open forum, To build and educate the body of Christ lets focus on the issue. I want to hear from the pro Apostlic view on this topic, Resentlly I am reading the Apostilic title and name on the DVD, megazine,etc. Let's hear and learn from this saints,let's open our heart to learn from all sides, The final authority for this issue will be the word of God.

Lets focus on the message not on the messanger,Finally we will take the meat throw the bone.

Dear Tekalign,

Thank you for your response to my comment. I am going to write in a way that may benefit all of us. Your argument and subsequent conclusion is, with due respect, solely based on a word study. But, what makes biblical interpretation sound is not only the meaning of the word but a comprehensive look on the whole text or the subject. In order to come to a conclusion from one’s study, there must be a careful study and analysis of the language, historical, physical and cultural settings, word study, analyzing thought structure, examining the context, unity of Scripture and coherence of Truth. After careful study of the text then one can come up with a sound interpretation for a specific topic. But, when I read your article I have noticed for the fact that you seem to have taken few words like “bemecheresha” and ‘esekeminderis/deresin” to come to an anticipated conclusion. That is why I commented on a Greek word “Mekri” meaning “until” in order to refute your misguided interpretation of the text. Contrary to your skill of interpretation, if we carefully apply exegesis on the text, we can understand that all of these gifts are given to prepare the Body of Christ until Christ’s second coming.

However, that is not the only problem I encountered while reading your article. You mentioned first Corinthians chapter fifteen what apostle Paul said to Corinthians regarding bodily resurrection of believers on the last days. He said that Jesus, after His resurrection, appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve, after that he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, to James to all apostles and last of all he appeared to him also, as to one abnormally born (1Cor 15:3-8). Here he tackles the problem of their denial of the bodily resurrection of believers in Corinth (Eschatological issue) and was not by any means establishing apostolic order or the ceassation of the gift of apostleship. Second, Paul did not witness Jesus’ post bodily resurrection like the other apostles. The truth of the matter is that Jesus met him after He had ascended to the Father (Acts 9:1-8). But in your conclusion you said, “Yeiyesusen tinsae akal beayine siga sayimeleketu hawariyanet yelem.” (Any one who did not witness Jesus’ bodily resurrection can not be an apostle). So, my question for you is “Did Paul witness Jesus’ bodily resurrection?” NO! He did not. Instead, the Lord of Glory revealed Himself to Paul on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9).

Another issue I would like to discuss is regarding Eph 4:8-16. The text clearly teaches us that Jesus gave to the church some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelist, and some to be pastors and teachers. Examining it we observe:
The Immediate purpose: to prepare believers for the work of the ministry for edifying the body of Christ.
The Final Goal: that believers mature to the measure of the fullness of Christ.
The Ultimate purpose: that believers can grow in unity.

Surprisingly enough, you said that since we have attained such maturity we do not need the office of the Apostle (if my understanding is correct). Here we see two major problems; 1) the body of Christ can not reach to that maturity to the measure of the fullness of Christ. In fact we all are growing to that maturity but not until the perfect comes; 2) if we believe (which is not true) that we have already attained to the level of that maturity the Scripture talks about, then we have to fairly conclude that all the gifts have ceased (do not function these days). We can not throw out some and keep others since the principle of interpretation does not allow us for this kind of selective conclusion.

Therefore all the gifts mentioned above still function for our edification until Our Lord and savior comes back . As I said in my previous comment, we have to be faithful to the Scriptures despite what our beliefs are. At last, I would like to put what one of the New Testament Scholars Craig S. Keener has to say regarding apostleship:

“Paul never restricted the use of God’s apostles to the Twelve or to the Twelve plus himself (Rom 16:7; 1Cor 15:5-7; Gal 1:19; compare occasionally even in Acts 1:26; 14:4,14). Given the need for apostles bringing Christ’s body to maturity (Eph 4:12-13), Paul would presumably assume that this gift, like the others he mentions, would continue to function until Christ’s return… Based on an examination of every use of the term apostle in the New Testament, I concluded that some features regularly characterized apostles. First, apostles seem to have broken new ground, originating a ministry. Second, apostles apparently exercised an authority generated by their ministry role, not by the church’s institutional structures. True apostles must be servants, never people who pull rank (Compare Acts 15:22; 1Cor 4:9-16; 2Cor 11:5-15). Third, both signs and sacrificial, simple living characterized apostolic ministry.” (Craig S. Keener, Gift and Giver, 128-129).

Therefore, there is no indication in the Bible that tells us that apostleship has ceased. But, we also need to be careful not so as to abuse the gift for personal gain and pulling rank. Just because some abused the gifts does not mean that we should go to the other extreme to oppose it. But, with humility and prayerful heart we can serve the Lord by upholding the Holy Scriptures.

In His Love.

Dear Iyosias I like discussing with you
In addition to what I said yesterday let me reply to your first paragraph and I will came back for the remaining tomorrow/c I have to have fellowship with brothers in the church. I totally agreed that our interpretation should not only based on word study but also should put in consideration all hermeneutical principles of any literature to have sound and consistence meaning of the given text.
Having said this let me came back to what your comment on my word analysis in my article. If the point of the word study is to see clearly the different usage of the word in different context and chose appropriate meaning of the word from possible range of meanings based on literary and historical context, I did not see why my interpretation is wrong. Let me show you with one example why I think your interpretation is wrong. You said that “if we carefully apply exegesis on the text, we can understand that all of the gifts are given to prepare the body of Christ until Christ’s coming”. From where did you drive such conclusion ? Because the text does not talk about the second coming it is your insertion, which we call eigesis.
As I said yesterday the word “mechri” have different meaning in different context. To put my interpretation in accordance with the literary context and the grammatical usage of the word I tried refer some well known Greek grammarians’ book to explain my point further and to settle the issue not only based on Lexical meaning but also based on grammatical usage of the word “mechri”. There are certain words which can be used as temporal adverb (or improper preposition), such as “hoes”, “achpi” and “mechri”. When these words are followed by subjunctive case those words translated as “until”. Such usage of words rather than showing the definite time in which the action is performed but “indicates a future contin¬gency from the perspective of the time of the main verb.” So, in the light of this grammatical usage the word “mechri” which is found in Eph 4:13 show us the reason or the purpose Christ “gave” (the main verb) those gifted man to the church is in order they might “attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,” (Eph 4:13 ESV). The usage of the word clearly demonstrates that the purpose Christ gave gifted man to the church is in order they might attain the goal he designed for them. The passage does not say that at definite time they definitely attain the goal. Time is not an issue here rather it shows us the purpose of it. Therefore, this particular passage does not demonstrate the present existence of Apostle. Your argument of the present existence of Apostle assumes that the word usage “mechri” s “it denotes time”. But today I clearly demonstrate that it does not rather it shows the purpose. If I show you the invalidity of your argument now show me other sound argument why I should change my mind and accept the present existence of Apostle or you should change your position. For further reference of grammatical usage you can see BDAG, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (The University of Chicago: USA) 2000, pag 479)
I will came back tomorrow for the remaining
God bless you
Tekalign Duguma

Dear Iyosias
I came back again to say some thing. Concerning the criteria to be an apostle, I am not the one who put the standard but Paul himself in 1 cor 9 when he replies to those who oppose his Apostolic authority. In this section he replies also to your question. You said ““Did Paul witness Jesus’ bodily resurrection?” NO! He did not.” But Paul said “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” (1cor 9:1) in this place Paul was equating himself with the rest of the Apostle in the criteria of seeing Jesus with resurrected body. So, did not I drive my conclusion from the scripture? Within the same book in chapter 15 Paul again when he replies to those who deny resurrection, he said I am the “last” to see Jesus after resurrection. Did I say contrary to what Paul says? Paul said that he is the last person to see Jesus after resurrection. And in chapter 9 seeing Jesus is one of the crucial criteria to be an Apostle. If Paul is the “last” to see Jesus that clearly imply that there is no Apostle to day. Because to be an Apostle one should see Jesus in resurrected body. Concerning whether Paul saw Jesus with his eyes I did not dispute with you because Paul himself speak Jesus within his eyes when he compare himself with other Apostles. I do not think you will say that other Apostles also saw Jesus in vision. Likewise in 1 cor 9 Paul put himself in line with other when he speaks about seeing Jesus resurrection.
The next comment you give me is based on wrong understanding of my article I did not say “Surprisingly enough, you said that since we have attained such maturity we do not need the office of the Apostle (if my understanding is correct).” Let me tell you something. I am trying to understanding the scripture as it says, And from the Eph 4:8-14 I could not find that those gifts should exist until (time) the perfection comes. Rather as I commented previously it shows that those gifted men were given in order church might rich to the goal God designed for her. I am not selecting any of the gifts based on my preference. But if you read my article carefully you can see clearly the function of the Apostles, which is providing teaching on which the church was founded. They were teaching about death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, based on this teaching the church was built. Therefore, they are functioning in the church now because we are reading the teaching they thought. Do not misunderstand me; I did not either all who wrote the scripture are Apostles or all Apostles wrote the scripture. But what I said is Apostolic teaching is the foundation of the church. Therefore my interpretation of the text does not based on choosing one and forsaking other gifts as you said rather it is exposing what the text says. I refuse to insert my own idea in to the text; rather I prefer to say what it says. My conclusion is I did not see were I did hermeneutical injustice. All the accusation, the word study, selectivity and so on does not hold ground. Still I need to see were my argument and my exegesis is wrong. If you show me clearly with sound reason and good exegesis I am willing to accept the truth. I want to be were the truth is and I believe the point of discussion is to know the truth and live by it, Nothing more and nothing less.
With blessing
Tekalign Duguma

Dear Ethiocross:
The last few days I have been extensively reading the comments made by Iyosias and Saint Fatuma Wakjira. I was blessed in their thiological knowledge and sound doctrine. They are the hope of our churches. I don't know if they have any platform to teach the body of Christ their Christ centerd and Christ focused ministry. I am most grateful if I get any opportunity to have personal talk with them if they happen to be in the greater D C area, or by any chance if they come to this area.
I am from the old school, following and serving my Lord over forty four years. But before my life hear on earth is ended to know that the Lord Jesus has His remnantes to lead back the church to the preaching of the Cross brings a renewing of my hope.
It is my prayer for God's protection on their lives and divine boldness in their preaching and teaching.

Zelleke

you guys dont forgat the work of Jesus on the cross. ur web page is not poletical when i thougt it sems church poletics tell us the word of God and show us JESUS we wont to see JESUS JESUS JESUS Focus on ur calling ministers of God.

Thanks.From NY

I thank Rev. Zeleke for taking a bold step and coming to the fore heeding to GWD's call, #2 in this blog. I appreciate his humility and concern for the church of Jesus Christ as a whole. May God honor and reward you, Pastor. Please, continue to pray and reach out to your current and former co-ministers in your area and beyond. I believe the Holy Spirit will guide you as He did in the last 44 years of your ministry and walk with the Lord.

To my yonger brothers, Iyosias and Tekalign, I thank you both for your painstaking research, exgesis, isegegis, hermeneuitical interpretation of the verses, Eph. 4:7-13. You did a great job of exposing the scriptural truth being refuting BeAle Simet being unbiblical. However, according to the interview Ato Mussie had with Rev. Dr. Tolosa presumably, the master of ceremony of the "simet", it was not meant to be a "Shumet" but an "ewuqina" for our dear Pastor Daniel. Well, what is the difference between simet and shumet? I thought the former was Geez and the latter was Amharic.If ewuqina means appreciation, I do not have any qualm. I join the saints in that respect for the pastor deserve my respect for his service. But, there are many others who have served the Lord 'bedur begegedel'among wary tribes, inhospitable climate, risking their life. But, how far we go back in time or history to honor these martyrs and great soldiers of the Cross? What of those who suffered fiery persecution during the Italian occupation in southern Ethiopia in 1940's, the imperial and Orthodox persecution of the Pentecostal movement in 1960-1990 and the current persecution and exclusion aimed at those "oldtime pente" believers and their families in the Diaspora by present day pastors and their proteges. Should we not just count them as heros of fatith (Heb. 11) and move on. God knows who and where they are any way. As for the living ones, we need to reach out to them and restore them to the fellowship by all means. That is Christ-like Christianity, otherwise, it is just Christianity without Christ or His likeness. May the Lord have mercy on us all. The Diaspora Church is hurting. Listen to Dereje for those of you who love to sing and Genet Sori, for those of us who enjoy rebuke and correction, just to cite a few.

A word of caution for my beloved brothers: mind that hermuneutics, the principle of biblical interpretation itself needs to be interpreted. The text books are based on Aristitotlian logics, liguistic, historical and cultural environment, remote and immediate context as well as the unity of the central message of the whole Bible. That is fine. It also means that the Holy Spirit and God's word do transcend human faculty of conceiving and perception. My position leans more toward Iyosia's due to my Pentecostal Holy Spirit baptism experience. The gifts, i.e., the men are still operational in the church today. Apostles are missionaries; pastors are shepherds; teachers are mentors; evangelists are forerunners and backburners; prophets are discerners and planners. We need them all in the church today as they as was yeterday. This is my stance.

Now I do not believe in the promotion form evangelist to pastor to prophet to Apostle. There is no scriptural or traditional ground in the early church. People may come up with exciting and noble ideas but it may not biblical.

I do believe these gift-officers are specially called and equipped servants to usher the word of God. They are called by Christ to church. They are gifted to the Church and the church identify and utilize them. These human gifts are differnt from other enablement gifts of the Holy Spirit we find in 1Cor.12 and Rom. 12.

Word study can be very important (like "Merchi") but I think the central theme of the chapter would shade more light to the verse under consideration. In the prvious chapter Paul was so fascinated about the mystery being revealed. The mystery is the power of the Cross that reconciled both the Jews and the Gentiles in the same manner and extent to God the Father through Jesus Christ. In the fourth chapter he talks about that unity in Christ being culminated in His Church by the Holy Spirit (3,4), the Body of Christ being built in love. The unity of the Body is to be attained through the gifts who were redeemed-captured men now given as a gift to the Church (7-11). Obviously, the purpose of the gifts is to train the believers for the task of building the Church to the extent of (merchi?) unity of faith, knowledge of the Son of God, matutity to the measure of fullness of Christ.

I beleive the crux of the matter to the controversy and confusion at hand is doctrinal immaturity of our leaders (v. 14)empowered by carnalism. The remedy is given in vv.15-22.

Paul further gives his Spirit-filled advice to both believers and leaders to put a NEW SELF in vv. 23-29. The OLD SELF has to be put to death (Gal. 2:20).
We all have a problem here, leaders and followers, alike.

As it is now, we have been grieving the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. Our state of mind and soul is corrupt. We cannot function fully and be utilized. We are like a dull tool. We need to repent and come to our senses. Whatever our pursuit has been, let us revisit it; realize; reassess it and renounce it; it is in no way greater than the CROWN that is awaiting us in Heaven! Count the cost. Let us patiently carry our minute crosses (mekera) as compared to our Master's. We look forward to the City and the Land where we will reign eternally with a Crown on our head! Let us sacrifice the temporal to gain the Eternal. Halelujah!


As Paul says, Humbly and repentanlty obeying vv. 30-31, we will be transformed to be a better and sharpened instrument in His hand.

With Calvary greetings'

SFW

(PS. I do not want sound too complicated as the word and the life is in the Spirit are simple, in Jesus Name. Amen!)

Dear Brother Tekalign,

Thank you for your response and openness to consider views that is different from yours. Before I reply to your last post, I would like to remind all of us that the reason we all participate in this forum is to share our views and learn from each other. We need to remember that we have a wide range of readers with varying knowledge of theology and different level of spiritual maturity. Thus, for the benefit us all, I will try to avoid using theological jargons.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my brother Saint Fatuma Wakjira for his Christ centered approach and contribution for this blog. I am very much encouraged by your gentle kinder spirit.

Brother Tekalign, as you may already know, the issue of the continuation of apostleship received different opposing views throughout Church history. Our discussion is not on a new topic. There are people who adamantly deny the functioning of the office these days. On the contrary, there are people who strongly believe that the office does function. At any rate, this is not one of the basic doctrinal differences (i.e., Trinity, the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, and that salvation is only through Him, His second coming, the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible etc...). The issue of the continuation of apostleship is a non essential issue, which means that having this difference; we still can live together and serve together the One who called us by His grace.

Having said that, I will try to respond to your last post, first, in 1Cor. 9:1 Paul’s purpose for writing this chapter was to establish his right to be an apostle not whether or not the office continues after him. And you said “Paul was the last to see Jesus’ bodily resurrection that clearly imply that there is no apostle today.” Jesus revealed Himself to him after the ascension therefore out of due season (1Cor 9:1; 15:3-8). One thing that needs to be clarified is that others who saw the Risen Christ did not become apostle but what legitimized his apostleship was the accompanying commissioning of him (Acts 9:3-19; Rom 1:2-5; Gal 1:1-2). But His appearance to Paul was “as to one abnormally born.” It refers to something he views his experience to be outside the “normal” process. This was a unique and gracious gift occurred after the time when such appearances were understood to have ceased (Since His ascension the divine visitation was in their experience of the Spirit).

Again, Paul said, “… and last of all he appeared to me as to one abnormally born” (1Cor 15:3-8). Paul used the word “last of all” in a non temporal sense to mean “the least significant” and he is not trying to legitimize his apostolic authority nor does he make the case that he stands on the same level with the other apostles. Instead, he seeks to authenticate the Gospel he preached was assumed to be the reality of the death and resurrection of Christ. In fact, he is responding to those Corinthian believers who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, not to those who say Paul is no apostle or there is no apostleship after him. Therefore, this word (“last of all”) can not give you any indication to make a major theological conclusion that reinforces the idea that there is no apostle after Paul.

Second, in my opinion, your interpretation of Eph 4:8-14 and the conclusion you came up appears to be influenced by your presupposition or preconceived theological beliefs. Here is why I said that- you said “those gifted men were given in order church might rich to the goal God designed for her.” But, the question that needs to be asked here is what kind of goal it is talking about. And your answer was “they were teaching about death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, based on this teaching the church was built”. If that is the case then the goal has already been attained! But that is not what the text tells us. As I mentioned on my previous comment, the final goal Our Lord gave those men to the church is that believers mature to the measure of the fullness of Christ. The context clearly indicates that those gifts were given for the church until we all grow to that maturity. Therefore, all gifts are necessary and are functioning and of course that includes apostleship.

I would like to make some points clear here. This apostleship is different from the Twelve apostles and Paul who received direct authority from Our Lord (those who had been with Jesus in His ministry and had witnessed His resurrection and Paul who was born out of season (1Cor. 15:8-9). The apostleship we are talking about is similar to those who received the gift of apostleship like Barnabas (Acts 14:4-14; 1Cor 9:5-7), James (1Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19), Apollos (1Cor 4:6-9), Titus (2Cor 8:23), Epaphroditus (Phil2:25), and possibly Andronicus and Junias (Rom 16:7).

Finally, we have, unfortunately, yet to see a true apostle of Christ who labors across ecumenical and denominational lines to preach, plant a church, keep the unity, and maintain a healthy doctrine. I believe that a true apostle is the one who is a servant, never pulls rank, works with signs and wanders, and whose life is characterized by a simple yet sacrificial living. Most importantly, he should be the one whose heart felt desire is bringing unity in the body of Christ and loving God’s people to say the least. But, it is saddening to see so called “apostles”, who are either self -appointed or appointed by Institutions, using the office either for personal gain or to lord over God’s people. The truth of the matter is one day we all stand before Our Lord and Savior to give account for what we have done on this life (1Cor 3:9-15). Until then let us walk in fear of God and serve Him with Spirit and Truth.

At last, my brother Tekalign, God bless you abundantly for your labor on presenting what is in your heart. I am not writing this to persuade you to change your position rather to clearly show other readers that there is another point of view. If I happen to persuade you, then my prayer is answered, but if not we are brothers, and we will not let this non essential issue divide us or the church. There are bigger issues that threaten the church of Jesus Christ at this post modern era so my prayer is that we will strive for unity and holiness to withstand the scheme of our enemy.



“May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing His will, and may He work in us what is pleasing to Him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
(Heb 13:20-21)



In His Love,

Iyosias

Dear Rev. Zeleke,

God bless you for standing with the truth. It is very encouraging to see those of you who have gone before us sticking to the message of the Cross. You have made a bold step to come forward and voice your concern for the Church of God. My prayer is that your contemporaries would learn from you and go back to preach the Crucified Messiah alone. All of us need to learn from the apostle Paul to make it our priority to resolve to know nothing except Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1Cor 2:2).

At last, Iyosias is my pen name that I chose for this particular time. I do appreciate your prayers.

May He help us to be faithful till the end.

In His Love.

Dear saints,The only true Judge knows the rewared of his true servant when all of us see him face to face in Heaven. The only everlasting title we will enjoy forever in heaven,
IS a Child of God.
All the crown and reward given to the faith full servants belong to Jesus.He is the slain Lamb of God. On calvary He gave his life and He gave the gift to build the body of Christ,
The only gift we will have in heaven is to worship him for ever and ever.
There is no pastor, teacher, Evanglist, Apostle,and prophet in Heaven.
All the gift given to the body to use them hear on earth,The purpose of this gift is to prepare the bride of Christ.
I am hearing a new term like preacher from west,Diaspora,etc..I only know Poeple In heaven called from diffrent language Rase and nation and washed by the blood of Jesus.
There is no division by east and west,. I only know those washed by the blood dressed the white Garment.
Now I am seeing a generational Gap,
we must correct today and now.
THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH THEY HAVE TO RAISE AND EQUIP and prepare THE LEADERS OF TOMMORROW.We are very let in preparing the way for young leaders.
The young Generation of today we have to Thank God for the Faith ful servant of God,The Anointed KING David when he got a chance to kill king Saul He will never raise his Hand on Saul.
Let us open our eyes to see the Good work of God through our brothers and sisters.By nature we are rushing to point out the weak point of the saint.Let's pray more when we see the weak point in the body and with love and pure motive let's confront the unGodly act and abuse in the church.
I thank God for deep theological
anlysis written by the Saint.
God Bless you All.

Dear Iyosias,

As your best articulations concluded it in a matured way, I say yes with you; we have to focus on what is essential.As far as me is concerned apologetics is so much misrepresented in Ethiopia the last ten years. This is because, basically apologetics is a defense of ones faith against outside attacks.That was what the N.T. apostles were doing in their time defending 'christianity with all its set of doctrines' against attacks from the Judaizers, Legalists, Roman and Greek Idolatrous politicians, pagans and so on, but all ATTACKS from the outside scenario.

Any open reader may see where we have missed here in Ethiopia. First of all we fight against one onother which is totally against the nature of apologetics, secondly we fight concerning non essential non doctrinal non cultic or heretic issues, which is still not the matter of apologetics rather a little bit close to polimism(internal matters), and which might just be part of some traditions only than heresy or cult. Third we made these unimportant issues 'the epi-center' for everything leaving aside other theological issues.

Don't you feel bad when somebody is spending all of his/her years in just only 'one not necessarily doctrinal issue' -the provanence of apostles.

As far as me is concerned, much buisness is done on simple, internal, minor and insignificant issues. These all simple matters might have something to do with polimism than apologetics. I see the so called 'apologists' just fighting against their brothers and sisters on issues which are not important and as such dangerour to doctrine.That was why I had less envolvment within this panel.

I really appreciate your matured way of addressing the issue. Enough is said in your article and those who have ear will surely hear.Those who refuse' borrowing your words, we're still brothers and sisters.

Let's all raise again other important threats to christian essentials, coming from the outside post modern world, and relegious terrorism including religious blocks destroying christianity Gagging God and our values, standing against truth, evangelism and church growth. That is what apologetics really is.

Thanks,
Leul

For unknown reason I am blocked.

My dear brother Leul,

If I hear you correctly, you are saying to Bro. Iyosias that we have exhausted the discussion and concluded that there is no apostolic succession in the church age today. The error or the notion has been corrected and that we should move on to other "essential" issues. If that is so, I would say PTL Prase the Lord). I hope we are unanimous on this.

Now, you indicated this very issue as non-essential? Why? Don't you see that if we comingle the Apostleship our Lord conferred on the original 12 (plus St. Paul) and the apostleship the church adopted/received being differnt as many of contributors have asserted? I beleive the foundational apostles (the 12 plus Paul), the ones upon whom our faith is built are not replaceable. I mean their ministry continues but their office has ceased giving them special place in the coming Kingdom of the Messaiah. Many have eloquently said it, as such I do not want to bore you by repeating it.
Now the problem rests in practical theology of missions, church growth and government, dealing with the role of apostles as a gift to the church as found in Eph. 4. We concluded that the men are Christ's gift to the church with the specific task of growing the church by preparing the saints for the ministry. Their mandate is to train, mentor and see to it that the ministry is done correctly. They are officers with special call to ministry. Although they may be not be readily identified by the church, they are the ones who have individually received their call to ministry. It rests on the church to descern their call and affirm and confirm their call as well as assign their position. The confirmation should be precede by prayerful scrutiny and continued support. I beleive they should be trained to train other saints for practical ministry such as evangelism, counseling, corporate prayer and worship, etc. Mind, verse 11 that ministry is to be done primarily by the saints. Reconcile this with 1Pt. 2:9 and the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20, Mk. 16:15, Acts 1:8). I am loud here. THE SAINTS ARE TO DO MINISTRY, of course in orderly manner under the direction of these gifts/offices. {Here I might be adding my Pentecostal experience but always ready to be challenged, learn and be corrected, by the grace of God). Now are we talking about the apostleship as in here or like the Pope? We cannot have another pope, one is too much! It is not biblical because there is no ground for apostolic succession as to be equal with the canonized scriptures, the Bible. I am shouting again with martin Luther, SOLA SCRIPTURA! OR BIBLE, BIBLE, BIBLE!!!

In my previous notes, I attempted to oversimplify the job description of the apostle (not Apostle). That is that he is the missionary, pioneering church planting primarily. He can/should be sent by a church or denominational institution. Now if the Ethiopian church in Addis is sending someone to Gambella, Algeria, Botswana or Alaska, then the church might want to ordain and commission its apostle (missionary). The distinctive offices are all separate and equal unless we make a big deal out of the priority of the listing. There is no simet, promotion or demotion here in the Church of Jesus Christ. Pray, Identify, Orient/train, Ordain, Commssion, Send, Support, Evaluate and go over the circle again. That should be our church mission startegy according St. Paul.

All saints are called to be witness of whom they know, Jesus Christ, as our interviewer said.

So, beloved Leul, I don't take apostleship lightly. Of course, you do not either. That is why we are here. You indicated this is a polemical matter. Without polemics there is no apologetics. Polemics deals with the source or foundation or the essence, if you will. Before we defend our faith, i.e., apologetics, should we not know what we defend, my brother? Negerin kesiru, wuhan kettiru (keminchu) new gudayu! leneger neger alew. Where is this hodge-podge coming from any way? It is lack of knowledge-the word of God, Scriptura, Sola Scriptura!

Do our leaders believe in the Bible, the only and final authority or the human medium, an "apostle"? If you open the door for apostolic succession or anther practical doctrine of ministry, you are opening the door for all types of problems in the church. You want the church to be pure doctrinally and pragmatically (I mean in practice). It is like a roof leak in your home. If you don't take care of right away, you will have a problem later. You want to guard the Church for whom our Lord died. Adera Alebin! That is the call. Not yeEnjera Guday! Not even professionalism or its ethics. No! Etiye lele!

You have to detect or sense the doctrinal error leading to other errors. You remember the indulgence. People had to buy their ticket to heaven from the Roman church and the priests facilitating the business? Sola fidis (salvation by faith alone!) People can bribe the apostle to get easy access to their 'heaven' today. I know it too well. We have to guard the priesthood of the saints as well, especially the immature ones who can be easy prey for street smart preachers, apostles, pastors, teachers and evangelists. They can quote gumut of Bible versus, butcher it anyway they like, twist, turn and translate them to mean what they want. You find many in the electronic media and 'arada kulito'.

Someone said a very ugly popular saying to the effect that he did not like the institutionalized or organized church. Didn't our Lord commnand the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they were filled with Holy Spirit? Does not it take organization to keep 120 of them together? Doesn't God want us to be 2-3 and agree and pray? It takes a lot of organization to keep 3 of us (Ethiopians) to agree on anything anyway! The book of Hebrews speaks of not neglecting meeting awaiting the coming of our Lord. These all take organization and institutional foundation. It is not God's will for a Christian to be alone and lonely. We need fellowship and corporate growth to maturity as well.

You are right we can agree on the essentials and often disagree on the non-essentials to keep the unity of the Spirit. But, sometimes, the non-essential gets in the way and became essential.

Speaking of essentials, the conservative circles thought worship style is non-essential but then find Pentecostal practice problematic. So they alieniated them to the extent that the categorize them as liberal. The liberals take the advantage of the gap and pump in their poison. That is why we lax life and lose doctrine. A lot of biblical theolgy is being compromized today: the innerency of the Bible (equated with the inneency of Pope or apostle or Apostle), the virgin birth of the Christ, Jesus the only way to God or salvation, His reserruction(a few among our leader are struggling with the physical reserruction of Our Lord), sin (tolerating sin, not preaching against sin, not being "judgmental", not offending the sinners who come to chruch for pscho-sociological reasons in America, homosexuality among clergy and Christans, adultery, marriage and re-marriage and remarriage, sex before marriage), the second coming of Christ (non issue anymore), etc. We may have them written out in our statements but paid pastors may not want to be strict for he will lose his job. He would be biting the finger that feeds him! I am for pastors being fed and honored well. PTL. But not when it is yeEnjera Guday.

Many secular businesses to be benefiting from the modern day commercialized entertainment Chrisitinity. We have created so many idols, the best, the world's best, preacher, evangelist, etc. We imitate the secular movie prodcers, Holy Wood, Nolly Wood, etc. Images after images depicting Christ?

Many have said abatoch yikeberu. Amen! These are the much younger or later than many other I know in the Ethiopian Penetecostal movement. Some of have never been there, God knows who they are. I do not think real abatoch who paid the cost would like to settle for the crown of simet now. Their's is stored in Heaven to be awarded when the Christ judges and rules from His thrones.Amen, Maranatha.

To God be the glory!

In His service,

SFW

Dear Saint Fatima,

You didn't hear me right.You misquoted me while you said "we are on the same line on the non-provanence of the apostolic office with the ministry".

Unfortunately or fortunately I am on the line of those who are pro apostleship.

My argument is 1- the issue of essential and non essential matters. Let's first sort out what is essential and what is not, which should be worthy of our call, life and time. If you say apostleship is one of the essential doctrines of Christianity; that is where me and you depart as I have done with many of my brothers and sisters like Tekalign and so who believe your way. I personally have never came across and read that 'apostleship' is one of the Christian doctrines, never ever in the history of the Church. I don't also think your church has added this to be one among the pillar doctrines. That is what I mean by essential if you hear me right.

2- No one can just pick up the issue of apostleship and leave the issue of gifts in the NT in the process of the argument. This is not my conclusion but a historical fact. I may also suggest books, not just books, but scholarly books with tis fact if you don't have them or if you have never read them. If you line up with those who believe in the non provenance of the apostles today the option is to throw away the 'babe with the water' I mean apostleship with gifts, because apostolic office and other offices with the gifts mentioned in the book of Romans, 1 Cor and Ephesians are together treated in the same package. This is not necessarily a Pentecostal bias but even those who deny apostolic provenance altogether deny the provenance of the gifts. Are you lining up with these people. Please say it very clearly!

Haven't you read that 15th C.FRONTIERS LIKE CALVIN, WARFIERD AND OTHERS WITH THE 19th C. Critical scholars have altogether said " gifts and live activity of the gifts with the apostles have died and buried during the NT age with the death of the 12 apostles".

Their reason was that gifts are only needed during the pioneer age but right after the church is institutionalized, 2nd C. A.D and on, there is no need for the apostles and other gifts.

If you refuse the existence of the apostles you will be forced to line up with the secessionists in the above explanation. Well that's your right. But I just want to hear what you believe about the gifts of the NT age and thier place today in the church. Are you lining up with these people. Please say it very clearly!

Third denial of the gifts with the apostles have also entailed something more to this if me and you examine the 19th C. critical scholarship age. This age, as you may well know, has given us methods like "higher criticism, lower Criticism, textual criticism and so on. The methods are good because we use them for our exegesis and hermeneutics but the notion all in all was to even deny the facts of the OT and NT making most of it mythical with no historical verification.(Bultmann and others).These people have denied most of the history of the OT and NT as just fictitious, let alone apostleship and gifts. Are you lining up with these people? Please say it very clearly!

On what you said of apologetics I don't think you differed much from my understanding of it. You seem to accept the Defn I suggested but then you used it for your cause. Still your very right to do that.

My dearly loved brother Saint Fatima and Brothers and sisters on similar feeling, I humbly wait for your clear answers where you line up?

Are you saying apostleship(its existence and non existence) is one of the essential doctrines of Christianity? Show me where? You want to deny apostleship, go ahead and show us you
deny the gifts also, and go ahead and show us that the majority of the OT and the NT is just fictitious, because that is what the original thinkers of this idea believe as you may well know.

I use I don't personally see other middle way.

Yours,
Leul.

My dear brother Leul,

I thank you very much for your comments. Forgive my inadequacy and ignorance. Frankly, I did not understand the term "provanence". If we are talking about provenance, which simply means origin, I believe Jesus is the Provenant Missionary to the world sent from above. He was Apostle-par-excellence. I meant the succession of Apostleship,the office of the Lord's Apostles (the 12 plus Paul who have a special place in the coming Kingdom) which falls in the inerrancy of the scripture. That office has ceased. There is no succession of that unique qualification (especially, to have seen Jesus after reserruction) and authority today. I think it is an essential doctrine. I meant Sola Scriptura. I believe the gifts of Holy Spirit is an essential doctrine. But again, I will swallow my pride to accomdate my "other" brother who does not eat meat, for the sake of Christian fellowship and missions. What is essential of the essentials, the bare minimum or the common denominator so we could agree for the sake of the gospel?
I will go any extra mile to win you over! You are by brother and I will never let you go, at least from my heart.

I beleive in and practice the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the apostleship I am refering to in Eph. 4 is distict, along with other offices, if you will. I believe, we need all the gifts much more today than ever in view of power evngelism for propagating the gospel. I am not ashamed to say I am both conservative and pentecostal. If I am not pentecostal, I will have nothing to conserve. If I am not conservative, I would be liberal and I will lose everything such that I would be left with nothing to anchor my faith in. Without further due, let me stop the discussion here. As someone indicated earlier, this is not a good forum to delve into doctrinal distinctives, just for the good of the family here.

I hope we agree but even if we do not I will still love you, no option! Praise the Lord!

May God bless you and your ministry!

Dear Saint Fatima,

I very much appreciate your honesty and humble spirit. There is so much for me to learn atleast from your attitudes which I didn't see in others.

Ya my fault, I meant 'provenance', just the attribution or acknowlegment. I misspelt it therefore it changed the whole meaning. Very sory for that.

With the rest I can see lot's of common things betwen us and I think we may continue to be brothers and sisters with all the differences we may have.

Thanks,
Leul.

My dear Leul,

Thank you so much for your prompt respons. I humbly accept your apology. In fact I have been praying over the whole matter at hand. How can two walk together unless they agree? Well, we can now disagree in view of agreeing in due course of time and walk together. There should be a room for growth in me. I am willing to listen, learn and limp with your rather than being left out in the limbo. You cannot leave me alone either because you have part of me in you, since you are my blood-bought brother, for my pain is your pain. We can or should be and are indeed differnt but not defiant.

To God be the Glory!

Maranatha. Amen!
SFW
Fikru giddddd yilenal!

Is any one p r a y i n g ?

Dear Iyosias I like discussing with you

In addition to what I said yesterday let me reply to your first paragraph and I will came back for the remaining tomorrow/c I have to have fellowship with brothers in the church. I totally agreed that our interpretation should not only based on word study but also should put in consideration all hermeneutical principles of any literature to have sound and consistence meaning of the given text.

Having said this let me came back to what your comment on my word analysis in my article. If the point of the word study is to see clearly the different usage of the word in different context and chose appropriate meaning of the word from possible range of meanings based on literary and historical context, I did not see why my interpretation is wrong. Let me show you with one example why I think your interpretation is wrong. You said that “if we carefully apply exegesis on the text, we can understand that all of the gifts are given to prepare the body of Christ until Christ’s coming”. From where did you drive such conclusion ? Because the text does not talk about the second coming it is your insertion, which we call eigesis.

As I said yesterday the word “mechri” have different meaning in different context. To put my interpretation in accordance with the literary context and the grammatical usage of the word I tried refer some well known Greek grammarians’ book to explain my point further and to settle the issue not only based on Lexical meaning but also based on grammatical usage of the word “mechri”. There are certain words which can be used as temporal adverb (or improper preposition), such as “hoes”, “achpi” and “mechri”. When these words are followed by subjunctive case those words translated as “until”. Such usage of words rather than showing the definite time in which the action is performed but “indicates a future contin¬gency from the perspective of the time of the main verb.” So, in the light of this grammatical usage the word “mechri” which is found in Eph 4:13 show us the reason or the purpose Christ “gave” (the main verb) those gifted man to the church is in order they might “attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,” (Eph 4:13 ESV).

The usage of the word clearly demonstrates that the purpose Christ gave gifted man to the church is in order they might attain the goal he designed for them. The passage does not say that at definite time they definitely attain the goal. Time is not an issue here rather it shows us the purpose of it. Therefore, this particular passage does not demonstrate the present existence of Apostle. Your argument of the present existence of Apostle assumes that the word usage “mechri” s “it denotes time”. But today I clearly demonstrate that it does not rather it shows the purpose. If I show you the invalidity of your argument now show me other sound argument why I should change my mind and accept the present existence of Apostle or you should change your position. For further reference of grammatical usage you can see BDAG, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (The University of Chicago: USA) 2000, pag 479)
I will came back tomorrow for the remaining plain scriptural

God bless you Tekalign Duguma


Dear Tekalign,

Thank you for your response to my comment. I am going to write in a way that may benefit all of us. Your argument and subsequent conclusion is, with due respect, solely based on a word study. But, what makes biblical interpretation sound is not only the meaning of the word but a comprehensive look on the whole text or the subject. In order to come to a conclusion from one’s study, there must be a careful study and analysis of the language, historical, physical and cultural settings, word study, analyzing thought structure, examining the context, unity of Scripture and coherence of Truth. After careful study of the text then one can come up with a sound interpretation for a specific topic. But, when I read your article I have noticed for the fact that you seem to have taken few words like “bemecheresha” and ‘esekeminderis/deresin” to come to an anticipated conclusion. That is why I commented on a Greek word “Mekri” meaning “until” in order to refute your misguided interpretation of the text. Contrary to your skill of interpretation, if we carefully apply exegesis on the text, we can understand that all of these gifts are given to prepare the Body of Christ until Christ’s second coming.

However, that is not the only problem I encountered while reading your article. You mentioned first Corinthians chapter fifteen what apostle Paul said to Corinthians regarding bodily resurrection of believers on the last days. He said that Jesus, after His resurrection, appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve, after that he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, to James to all apostles and last of all he appeared to him also, as to one abnormally born (1Cor 15:3-8). Here he tackles the problem of their denial of the bodily resurrection of believers in Corinth (Eschatological issue) and was not by any means establishing apostolic order or the ceassation of the gift of apostleship.

Second, Paul did not witness Jesus’ post bodily resurrection like the other apostles. The truth of the matter is that Jesus met him after He had ascended to the Father (Acts 9:1-8). But in your conclusion you said, “Yeiyesusen tinsae akal beayine siga sayimeleketu hawariyanet yelem.” (Any one who did not witness Jesus’ bodily resurrection can not be an apostle). So, my question for you is “Did Paul witness Jesus’ bodily resurrection?” NO! He did not. Instead, the Lord of Glory revealed Himself to Paul on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9).

Another issue I would like to discuss is regarding Eph 4:8-16. The text clearly teaches us that Jesus gave to the church some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelist, and some to be pastors and teachers. Examining it we observe: The Immediate purpose: to prepare believers for the work of the ministry for edifying the body of Christ.
The Final Goal: that believers mature to the measure of the fullness of Christ.
The Ultimate purpose: that believers can grow in unity.


Surprisingly enough, you said that since we have attained such maturity we do not need the office of the Apostle (if my understanding is correct). Here we see two major problems; 1) the body of Christ can not reach to that maturity to the measure of the fullness of Christ. In fact we all are growing to that maturity but not until the perfect comes; 2) if we believe (which is not true) that we have already attained to the level of that maturity the Scripture talks about, then we have to fairly conclude that all the gifts have ceased (do not function these days). We can not throw out some and keep others since the principle of interpretation does not allow us for this kind of selective conclusion.


Therefore all the gifts mentioned above still function for our edification until Our Lord and savior comes back . As I said in my previous comment, we have to be faithful to the Scriptures despite what our beliefs are. At last, I would like to put what one of the New Testament Scholars Craig S. Keener has to say regarding apostleship:


“Paul never restricted the use of God’s apostles to the Twelve or to the Twelve plus himself (Rom 16:7; 1Cor 15:5-7; Gal 1:19; compare occasionally even in Acts 1:26; 14:4,14). Given the need for apostles bringing Christ’s body to maturity (Eph 4:12-13), Paul would presumably assume that this gift, like the others he mentions, would continue to function until Christ’s return… Based on an examination of every use of the term apostle in the New Testament, I concluded that some features regularly characterized apostles. First, apostles seem to have broken new ground, originating a ministry. Second, apostles apparently exercised an authority generated by their ministry role, not by the church’s institutional structures. True apostles must be servants, never people who pull rank (Compare Acts 15:22; 1Cor 4:9-16; 2Cor 11:5-15). Third, both signs and sacrificial, simple living characterized apostolic ministry.” (Craig S. Keener, Gift and Giver, 128-129).

Therefore, there is no indication in the Bible that tells us that apostleship has ceased. But, we also need to be careful not so as to abuse the gift for personal gain and pulling rank. Just because some abused the gifts does not mean that we should go to the other extreme to oppose it. But, with humility and prayerful heart we can serve the Lord by upholding the Holy Scriptures.

In His Love.

RE:- Dear Iyosias

Concerning the criteria to be an apostle I am not the one who put the standard but Paul himself in 1 cor 9 when he replies to those who oppose his Apostolic authority. In this section he replies also to your question. You said ““Did Paul witness Jesus’ bodily resurrection?” NO! He did not.” But Paul said “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” (1cor 9:1) in this place Paul was equating himself with the rest of the Apostle in the criteria of seeing Jesus with resurrected body. So, did not I drive my conclusion from the scripture? Within the same book in chapter 15 Paul again when he replies to those who deny resurrection, he said I am the “last” to see Jesus after resurrection.

Did I say contrary to what Paul says? Paul said that he is the last person to see Jesus after resurrection. And in chapter 9 seeing Jesus is one of the crucial criteria to be an Apostle. If Paul is the “last” to see Jesus that clearly imply that there is no Apostle to day. Because to be an Apostle one should see Jesus in resurrected body. Concerning whether Paul saw Jesus with his eyes I did not dispute with you because Paul himself speak Jesus within his eyes when he compare himself with other Apostles. I do not think you will say that other Apostles also saw Jesus in vision. Likewise in 1 cor 9 Paul put himself in line with other when he speaks about seeing Jesus resurrection.

The next comment you give me is based on wrong understanding of my article I did not say “Surprisingly enough, you said that since we have attained such maturity we do not need the office of the Apostle (if my understanding is correct).” Let me tell you something. I am trying to understanding the scripture as it says, And from the Eph 4:8-14 I could not find that those gifts should exist until (time) the perfection comes. Rather as I commented previously it shows that those gifted men were given in order church might rich to the goal God designed for her. I am not selecting any of the gifts based on my preference. But if you read my article carefully you can see clearly the function of the Apostles, which is providing teaching on which the church was founded. They were teaching about death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, based on this teaching the church was built. Therefore, they are functioning in the church now because we are reading the teaching they thought.

Do not misunderstand me; I did not either all who wrote the scripture are Apostles or all Apostles wrote the scripture. But what I said is Apostolic teaching is the foundation of the church. Therefore my interpretation of the text does not based on choosing one and forsaking other gifts as you said rather it is exposing what the text says. I refuse to insert my own idea in to the text; rather I prefer to say what it says. My conclusion is I did not see were I did hermeneutical injustice. All the accusation, the word study, selectivity and so on does not hold ground. Still I need to see were my argument and my exegesis is wrong. If you show me clearly with sound reason and good exegesis I am willing to accept the truth. I want to be were the truth is and I believe the point of discussion is to know the truth and live by it, Nothing more and nothing less.

With blessing Tekalign Duguma

Dear brother Tekalegn, i thank you for this article today. i saw a man of God with the pure WORD of God in apology to the present day heresies. God has people like you who say, 'sola scriptura' in every era. at the same time, i feel sad to the church of Ethiopia which left the Bible behind her and listen to men's teachings and empty words of prefabricating prophecies. May God deliver His sheep out of the mouths of wolves!!
bless u much.