Apostolic Ministry, Authority, and Spiritual Legacy:
A Lesson from the Kings of Israel
There is an emerging challenge facing the wider body of Christ related to the idea surrounding the "restoration of apostolic ministry." The idea of a recovery of apostolic ministry primarily comes from various streams inside the Charismatic movement and related churches. Let me establish at the outset of this essay that I believe there are in some instances valid apostolic ministries in the church today. I also believe that this can be defended biblically. The focus and scope of such ministries must be defined biblically and understood within the limits of their God given function.
The emerging challenge however centers not on whether or not apostles exist today, but instead on a proper understanding of what constitutes authority in such ministries as well as other ministries which function in the church. Ideas on the issue of authority are covered in the popular literature of the day. Increasingly, as seen in this literature, there is a shift away from authority as given by Scripture to authority derived from position and gifting. Authority in this instance resides within the individual. It may come originally from God through the gifting he imparts, but in the end it is in the possession of the individual after it is given. In this case the ministry, apostolic or other, carries authority almost by what one could refer to as a "spiritual birthright." Such a concept would constitute an intrinsic authority functioning inside the individual instead of an authority attached to an outside source. This difference is crucial since it places the individual at the center of authority and not the overarching outside source. Please note that gifting does provide for a functional capacity to do what God has called one to do, but this in itself does not give the individual ministry authority. So what is the source of authority and its function? Is there any biblical framework or guideline that can helps us?
In order to answer these critical questions we will draw some principles from the law of the Kings of Israel found in Deuteronomy 17. This provides a good starting place since the office of King in Israel is a type of Christ in his role as Messiah. Christ perfectly fulfills the office of King by his ruling authority. This ruling aspect is also passed on to the elders of the church as told to us by Paul in I Timothy 5:17. Ministries in the church do exercise authority, but it is the Messiah's authority they represent.
In 1644, Samuel Rutherford, in his classic work Lex Rex: The Law and the King, takes up the issue of the divine birthright of the kings of England as a source of divine unction or authority. Rutherford argued in Question 10 of Lex Rex that a king's birthright could not be confused with the "divine unction" or the authority to rule. The authority to rule instead came from an external source and in this case that source was the law of God as given in Scripture. Rutherford's exegesis of Deuteronomy 17 provided a proper understanding of the source of authority and its function. It was not possible, Rutherford protested, that a king's birthright gave him the authority to rule in Israel, but rather it was that he was called of God, "he was the Lord's choice," and he was required to copy, read, and govern according to the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:15&18). Further, it was not a king's birthright that kept him in power after he refused to obey God. If he turned away from the Lord and his word he was soon removed from his throne. A king's birthright might have qualified him to come to the throne, but it did not keep him there. What kept a king on his throne was his commitment to honor God's word, teach it, rule by it, and obey it himself.
Therefore, Deuteronomy 17 provides three key components to the biblical exercise of authority if the individual exercising it desires to serve, honor, and glorify God. Consider the following three key components.
1. The individual placed into a position of authority is put their due to Divine election. The person in authority receives their calling and placement by God's choice (Deut. 17:15). Grace, humility, and accountability to God must be in place here. No individual with God ordained authority can take pride in their position and status as though they are special in and of themselves. God chooses whom he chooses by his sovereignty, not because of the internal worthiness of the vessel chosen. Therefore, the one chosen must serve God in humility, fear, and dependency. This dependency is underscored in Deuteronomy 17 by submission to the Word of God. The right to command and speak with authority does not come from gifting, it comes from Scripture alone. Authority defined in this crucial chapter has nothing to do with "birthright," but has everything to do with God's word. The Reformational principle of Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) is in force here.
2. In the case of Israel's kings they were required to copy and read the Scripture "all the days of his life" (Deut. 17:19). The passage continues to instruct us that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words ..." The word "keeping" here in the passage does not just mean mere acquaintance with biblical verses, but devotional commitment to reading and living the implication of Scripture.
3. The ability to continue in a position of authority was based on accountability to God and his Word (Deut. 17:20). The Scripture here tells us, "that he may continue long in his kingdom" (Hebrew = reign or rule). Submission to the Scripture prevented the king from lifting up his heart above his brothers.
Did the king in this passage have a responsibility to lead - yes. Did the king have the responsibility to exercise authority - yes. However the source and context of that authority was God's sovereign purpose and his Word.
It is through this that real spiritual legacy is given.
Gary Finkbeiner
A Lesson from the Kings of Israel
There is an emerging challenge facing the wider body of Christ related to the idea surrounding the "restoration of apostolic ministry." The idea of a recovery of apostolic ministry primarily comes from various streams inside the Charismatic movement and related churches. Let me establish at the outset of this essay that I believe there are in some instances valid apostolic ministries in the church today. I also believe that this can be defended biblically. The focus and scope of such ministries must be defined biblically and understood within the limits of their God given function.
The emerging challenge however centers not on whether or not apostles exist today, but instead on a proper understanding of what constitutes authority in such ministries as well as other ministries which function in the church. Ideas on the issue of authority are covered in the popular literature of the day. Increasingly, as seen in this literature, there is a shift away from authority as given by Scripture to authority derived from position and gifting. Authority in this instance resides within the individual. It may come originally from God through the gifting he imparts, but in the end it is in the possession of the individual after it is given. In this case the ministry, apostolic or other, carries authority almost by what one could refer to as a "spiritual birthright." Such a concept would constitute an intrinsic authority functioning inside the individual instead of an authority attached to an outside source. This difference is crucial since it places the individual at the center of authority and not the overarching outside source. Please note that gifting does provide for a functional capacity to do what God has called one to do, but this in itself does not give the individual ministry authority. So what is the source of authority and its function? Is there any biblical framework or guideline that can helps us?
In order to answer these critical questions we will draw some principles from the law of the Kings of Israel found in Deuteronomy 17. This provides a good starting place since the office of King in Israel is a type of Christ in his role as Messiah. Christ perfectly fulfills the office of King by his ruling authority. This ruling aspect is also passed on to the elders of the church as told to us by Paul in I Timothy 5:17. Ministries in the church do exercise authority, but it is the Messiah's authority they represent.
In 1644, Samuel Rutherford, in his classic work Lex Rex: The Law and the King, takes up the issue of the divine birthright of the kings of England as a source of divine unction or authority. Rutherford argued in Question 10 of Lex Rex that a king's birthright could not be confused with the "divine unction" or the authority to rule. The authority to rule instead came from an external source and in this case that source was the law of God as given in Scripture. Rutherford's exegesis of Deuteronomy 17 provided a proper understanding of the source of authority and its function. It was not possible, Rutherford protested, that a king's birthright gave him the authority to rule in Israel, but rather it was that he was called of God, "he was the Lord's choice," and he was required to copy, read, and govern according to the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:15&18). Further, it was not a king's birthright that kept him in power after he refused to obey God. If he turned away from the Lord and his word he was soon removed from his throne. A king's birthright might have qualified him to come to the throne, but it did not keep him there. What kept a king on his throne was his commitment to honor God's word, teach it, rule by it, and obey it himself.
Therefore, Deuteronomy 17 provides three key components to the biblical exercise of authority if the individual exercising it desires to serve, honor, and glorify God. Consider the following three key components.
1. The individual placed into a position of authority is put their due to Divine election. The person in authority receives their calling and placement by God's choice (Deut. 17:15). Grace, humility, and accountability to God must be in place here. No individual with God ordained authority can take pride in their position and status as though they are special in and of themselves. God chooses whom he chooses by his sovereignty, not because of the internal worthiness of the vessel chosen. Therefore, the one chosen must serve God in humility, fear, and dependency. This dependency is underscored in Deuteronomy 17 by submission to the Word of God. The right to command and speak with authority does not come from gifting, it comes from Scripture alone. Authority defined in this crucial chapter has nothing to do with "birthright," but has everything to do with God's word. The Reformational principle of Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) is in force here.
2. In the case of Israel's kings they were required to copy and read the Scripture "all the days of his life" (Deut. 17:19). The passage continues to instruct us that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words ..." The word "keeping" here in the passage does not just mean mere acquaintance with biblical verses, but devotional commitment to reading and living the implication of Scripture.
3. The ability to continue in a position of authority was based on accountability to God and his Word (Deut. 17:20). The Scripture here tells us, "that he may continue long in his kingdom" (Hebrew = reign or rule). Submission to the Scripture prevented the king from lifting up his heart above his brothers.
Did the king in this passage have a responsibility to lead - yes. Did the king have the responsibility to exercise authority - yes. However the source and context of that authority was God's sovereign purpose and his Word.
It is through this that real spiritual legacy is given.
Gary Finkbeiner
