So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us-- one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22, NRSV)
Critics of Latter-day Saint ecclesiology often point to Acts 1:21-22 as “proof” that to be a true apostle, one must be an eye-witness of the resurrected Jesus. However, absolutizing this passage results in an internal consistency within the Acts of the Apostles itself as well as the rest of the New Testament and early Christian understandings of apostleship.
Liberal New Testament scholar Arie W. Zwiep, while agreeing with many Evangelicals that this is the proper way to understand the text (i.e., as providing the test for true apostleship) notes that this results in a gross inconsistency in the theology of Acts itself:
In these verses there emerges clearly a different understanding of apostleship in comparison with the rest of the NT and early Christianity. Whereas the primitive Christian requirements of apostleship demanded a personal encounter with the risen Lord as for instance in the case of Paul, the requirements mentioned here seem to involve much more than that. Luke’s definition is in agreement with this stress on eyewitnesses. Paul and Barnabas would not meet the strict Lukan criteria. This is almost certainly a Lukan innovation. By the time he wrote Acts and most of the leading apostles were no longer alive, the question about who represented the true apostolic gospel gained increasing significance. In my view, Luke wishes to stress the legitimacy of the Pauline mission by firmly anchoring Paul to the Twelve apostles in Jerusalem, who in turn had been commissioned by the risen Lord himself. This explains why Luke shows no further interest in the succession of the apostles after their death, as for instance, in the case of James. (Arie W. Zwiep, Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on Context and Concern of Acts 1:15-26 [WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004], 155-56, emphasis added)
If Evangelical critics wish to use this passage against LDS claims to authority, they will have to be intellectually honest and jettison inerrancy of the Bible, too.
For more, see my The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page
Paypal